War on Terror
There’s nothing a practising Muslim ever does without the invocation: “Bismillah ar-Rahman-ur-Rahim” (In the name of Allah, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful). About Prophet Mohammed he will tell you that Allah sent him to earth as “Rahmat-ul-Alemeen” (mercy on all mankind). The very word Islam means peace, you will be told. Allah, Prophet Mohammed, Islam is all about peace, compassion, mercy. Get it?
No doubt Mumtaz Qadri, the assassin of Pakistan Punjab Governor Salman Taseer, believes himself to be a pious Muslim. No doubt “Bismillah ar-Rahman-ur-Rahim” preceded the bullets he pumped into a person he was trained, paid and sworn to protect, risking his life if need be. No doubt he committed cold-blooded murder in the name of “Allah the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful”, in defence of a religion that means peace, and the honour of the Prophet (Hurmat-e-Rasul), who is meant to be mercy on all mankind. Killing for peace? I just don’t get it. -- Javed Anand
Firstly, India must strongly oppose America’s continued military occupation of Afghanistan and also condemn its drone attacks on innocent civilians in Pakistan. It is high time we Indians realised that the US has aided the rise of religious extremism in Pakistan both by supporting the Taliban covertly in the 1980s, and also by fighting it overtly now. Indeed, America would do itself good by leaving Afghanistan, Pakistan and India to manage our own affairs, and resolve our own disputes. Moreover, today’s economically weakened America has no stomach for prolonging its unwinnable war in Afghanistan. Therefore, here is an opportunity for India to play the role of a benign leader in South Asia, by winning the confidence of the peoples of neighbouring countries.
India’s ability to play the leadership role, and thereby establish a new design for a secular, democratic and cooperative South Asia, critically hinges on early resolution of the Kashmir dispute. The longer Kashmir remains strife-torn, the more oxygen it will provide to religious extremists in Pakistan and also to anti-India sections in its armed forces. Therefore, there is an urgent need to intensify efforts in India for a national consensus on resolution of the Kashmir dispute.
The third bold idea is to unleash the power of Indianised Islam to bring the Muslims of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh into a closer fraternity, not as a dominant or separate community enjoying exclusive rights and a privileged status over others (such as is given by the blasphemy law in Pakistan) but as an equal member of a secular, multi-religious subcontinental family. This calls for a new confederal constitutional arrangement between India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, in which the three countries remain sovereign and yet adhere to the common principles of justice, secularism, democracy and protection of minorities in their territories. In other words, Pakistan and Bangladesh must be re-absorbed and re-integrated into the Idea of India, with this important recognition that Islam is as much a part of the idea of India as Hinduism and other faiths are.
Only those people remake history who pursue a bold and enlightened vision. -- Sudheendra Kulkarni
In recent years, the Qaeda affiliate has left a trail of violence across Mauritania, Niger, Algeria and Mali, taking aim at tourists, expatriate workers, local residents and security forces. Hostages taken in the porous border regions have been executed or ransomed. Five French and two African workers kidnapped in Niger last September are believed to be held in northern Mali. The Algerians and some Western diplomats accuse the Malians of being too soft on terrorism, an opinion reflected in the cables obtained by WikiLeaks. But Mali's defenders argue that the regional problem is far larger than any one poor country can address. -- Neil MacFarquhar
The threat posed by the TTP is difficult to counter because of the conceptual confusion within Pakistan’s establishment. The TTP is not a homogenous group, but an umbrella organization which allows militants or breakaway factions from a large number of organizations to share resources including manpower to carry out their ideological battle. Although belonging to various religious schools of thought, the militants are inspired by the Muslim theologian Ibn Taymiyyah’s philosophy of waging war against the non-Muslim world and using violence against Muslims who do not agree with a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam.
The TTP does not have a central command and is comprised of Pashtun Pakistani militants from groups based in mainland Pakistan such as the Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP), Lashkar-e-Jhangavi, Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami (HUJI), JeM, and LeT. Besides LeT, which is Salafist, all the other groups have the same broad ideology from a different Islamic school of thought the Deobandi School which they also share with the Afghan Taliban. Most also have some links with al Qaeda (see Figure 1), but groups such as the SSP predate al-Qaeda and have old links with the global terrorist network. The TTP is a franchise of al Qaeda, with similar structures. It also draws strength from the SSP, which is considered the leading organization amongst the Deobandi groups. There also are deep links between al Qaeda and the TTP because al Qaeda has acquired a more local character over the years. According to Aamir Rana, an expert on terrorism, militant commander Ilyas Kashmiri, who leads HUJI, is also now the new leader of al Qaeda in Pakistan. 3
Rana believes that the July 2, 2010 terrorist attack against a Sufi shrine in Lahore represented an internal scuffle for the leadership of al Qaeda’s Pakistani franchise. This indicates that al Qaeda in Pakistan is not necessarily dominated by Arabs, but has a strong local component. It is a platform for all the militants who follow the ideology of takfir (the process of declaring someone as a nonbeliever and hence impure). The Takfiris among the Salafists, Wahhabis, and Deoband is three broad schools of thought in Islamtend to declare war against anyone who is considered a non-believer. Ayman al-Zawahiri is considered to be the ideologue of takfiri ideology in al Qaeda. 4
However, the takfir ideology has spread among other militant groups, which has allowed some militants to break away from parent organizations and merge into the TTP. The TTP believes in waging jihad even against Muslims who help non-Muslims or do not fight un-Islamic rule. Such a belief compels them to wage war against Pakistani forces, as they are considered to be toeing the U.S. line and fighting a war that is not Pakistan’s.
The list of friendly militants does not end with those present in North Waziristan. Pakistan’s army is equally unwilling to eliminate other militant groups which have found safe haven in mainland Pakistan. LeT, which came to international attention because of its involvement in the 2008 Mumbai attacks, and JeM have a long partnership with the army for what Rawalpindi considers strategic reasons. -- Ayesha Siddiqa
As a result of Pakistan’s support to the second episode of jihad, which is now known as the ‘Taliban era’, we received TTP, the suicide bombing culture and ended up with large swathes of land out of state control. Nation states resort to different tactics to secure their national interests, ranging from diplomacy to proxies (fighters of state A who secure its interest in host state B). In the real world it is almost considered legitimate to secure a state’s interests through any means. ‘Proxies’ is a common phenomenon, but a major question to be considered is whether the benefits of proxies are worth the costs. The international community is nearly unanimous on the point that Pakistan is backing some factions of the Taliban, for which they have coined the term ‘good Taliban’. Western analysts and political leaders call Pakistan’s approach a ‘pick-and-choose’ policy. They believe that Pakistan facilitates this faction of the Taliban as it is assumed that it will guard its interests in Afghanistan, i.e. to curtail Indian influence and have safe havens for India-centric jihadis...
If we want to decrease Indian influence in Afghanistan we have to bring a major shift in our strategic calculus and we have to extend our best possible support to the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Afghanistan. If we fail to do so, then it is very likely that there will be Lahori Taliban, Peshawari Taliban, Multani Taliban, Gujrati Taliban, Karachi Taliban and Sialkoti Taliban, so on and so forth. --Azizullah Khan
Sindh, Pakistan’s Southern Province, witnessed spiralling violence throughout 2010, as did the rest of the country, with the number of terrorist attacks resulting in fatalities rising from 19 in 2009 to at least 62 in 2010 (all data till December 19, 2010). Significantly, after one of its worst incidents last year, the suicide bombing that killed 43 people in Karachi, the provincial and economic capital of the terror-ridden nation, on December 28, 2009, Asmatullah Shaheen, a Tehreek-Taliban-Pakistan (TTP) ‘commander’, had threatened more attacks on "the US ally, declaring, "My group claims responsibility for the Karachi attack and we will carry out more such attacks within 10 days." ...
Government agencies have largely remained paralysed and numbed by this onslaught. The SFs had arrested just 124 militants belonging to the TTP, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ) and Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP), in 2009. That number rose slightly to 144 in 2010. Unsurprisingly, Sindh continues to experience ever-increasing violence because of the mushrooming of terrorist outfits that appear and capriciously disappear, deepening the future possibility of a weakened society and a failed polity. The extreme violence in Sindh, and particularly in Karachi, is a demonstration of the entrenched character of the national bourgeoisie and the political elite, who have long engaged in reactionary national-ethnic and religious political and militant mobilisation, collapsing the structure of society and of the state. There is little evidence of the emergence of any progressive forces with the capacity to reverse these trends and stabilise Pakistan’s failing system. -- Ambreen Agha, Research Assistant, Institute for Conflict Management, New Delhi
Pakistan has many more drones than America. These are mullah-trained and mass-produced in madrassas and militant training camps. Their handlers are in Waziristan, not in Nevada. Like their aerial counterparts, they do not ask why they must kill. However, their targets lie among their own people, not in some distant country. Collateral damage does not matter…..
Not all Pakistanis are angry at aerial drone strikes. According to Farhat Taj, a Pushto speaking female researcher at the University of Oslo who makes frequent trips to FATA, most tribals actually welcome the drone attacks. She says these victims of Taliban brutality do so out of helplessness and desperation. They would prefer their enemies to be killed by the Pakistan Army, but it is also acceptable if they are killed by infidel America. Bucking accepted wisdom, she claims, “In Waziristan people get really upset when there are no drone attacks. Their apprehension is that the US and Pakistani government might enter in an agreement to halt the attacks.” -- Pervez Hoodbhoy
Very few people realize that a total of 14 Americans (al-Qaeda’s original enemy), got killed within Pakistan since 9/11. These included twelve American servicemen, Daniel Pearl (journalist) and a diplomat….
The Condolence payment or compensation for every American soldier killed, in the war on Terror is USD 400,000 ( Rs. 34 million) while no compensation has reportedly been paid to the dependants of Pakistan Soldiers who died in the line of duty. Even civilians deaths are not compensated. -- Imran Bajwa
The apprehension that Islamist terrorists could cobble together or otherwise acquire a dirty nuclear device, has lent a particularly lethal dimension to the terrorist threat. The argument that this can be prevented reflects wishful thinking, as does the claim that the Taliban and Al Qaeda will remember what happened post-9/11 and refrain from further strikes against the US. The fact that strikes and attempted strikes continue, makes nonsense of it. One is here talking of people who are not guided by rational military logic and to whom the hereafter and not the present world matters. They court martyrdom and would not hesitate to take the whole world with them if that comes to that. -- Hiranmay Karlekar
The BJP on Sunday alleged that the inclusion of RSS leader Indresh Kumar’s name in the Ajmer blast chargesheet was a political conspiracy hatched by the Congress. The Congress, on the other hand, asked the saffron party to reflect upon the involvement of people belonging to the Sangh Parivar in terror acts.
It said the disclosure has not come as a surprise.
AICC general secretary Digvijay Singh, who was the first to raise the issue of saffron terror way back in September 2008, said the disclosure was nothing new and that Kumar had been a key strategist behind all terror incidents.
*ATS Plans To Grill Indresh
*Glaring proof but MP’s eyes wide shut
*Gehlot could do a Togadia to RSS leader & have him arrested
The death of Baitullah Mehsud last year was, for instance, celebrated as a major blow to the organisation. This would suggest, then, that the reported injuries suffered by Qari Hussain should be considered as crippling the entire leadership cadre of the organisation. Add to this the deaths of sundry thirds- and fourths-in-command that are regularly reported in North Waziristan and it becomes baffling how the Taliban are able to conduct any operation at all, let alone stand up to not one but two much larger and better-equipped armies. -- Rafia Zakaria
General Jim Jones, the National Security Advisor who resigned recently, is quoted as telling President Asif Zardari: “If, God forbid, Shahzad’s SUV had blown up in Times Square, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. The president [ Obama] would be forced to do things that Pakistan would not like… No one will be able to stop the response and consequences.
This is not a threat, just a statement of political fact.” Apparently, in such an event, the US has drawn up plans to bomb 150 “terrorist centres” in Pakistan. -- By Najam Sethi
... who's made the profit? Well, the arms dealers, naturally, and Boeing and Lockheed Martin and all the missile lads and the drone manufacturers and F-16 spare parts outfits and the ruthless mercenaries who stalk the Muslim lands on our behalf now that we have created 100,000 more enemies for each of the 19 murderers of 9/11. Torturers have had a good time, honing their sadism in America's black prisons – it was appropriate that the US torture centre in Poland should be revealed on this ninth anniversary – as have the men (and women, I fear) who perfect the shackles and water-drowning techniques with which we now fight our wars. And – let us not forget – every religious raver in the world, be they of the Bin Laden variety, the bearded groupies in the Taliban, the suicide executioners, the hook-in the arm preachers, or our very own pastor of Gainesville. -- Robert Fisk
Talking Is The Point
The point is the talk itself. War may not happen, for conditions do not allow it, but talk of war very nearly serves the purpose of those who would like to see it happen. In short, war is best, but talk of war is a close second.
Such talk, from whichever perspective, helps build a siege mentality among an unsuspecting public. Whether you listen to arguments for or against, just the fact that you are listening to serious war talk all around you makes you feel you are, or soon could be, at war. And that opens you up to the idea of supporting the purchase of another aircraft bomber even if you can’t pay your mortgage instalment.
There is nothing new to this. Long before he propounded the clash of civilizations theory, Samuel P. Huntington made a name for himself by arguing that maintaining a large and fully equipped military was imperative for the United States even in times of peace. His book The Soldier and the State came out in 1957, when liberal Americans were wondering why they should spend millions of dollars on the military although the world war was well over and no new war was imminent. -- Saif Shahin
Salvador Dali, master of the surreal, would have felt a twinge of envy had he read the annual Country Reports on Terrorism 2009 released by the US State Department last week. The report, mandated by the US Congress, is supposed to present an authoritative assessment of the threat posed to the US by non-US terrorist groups as well as countries designated as “state sponsors of terrorism”. Instead, the report paints a curious picture that bears only the most tenuous link to reality...
While Pakistan is justifiably identified as a victim of terrorism, its state security apparatus, particularly the untouchable Inter-Services Intelligence, is absolved of any complicity in promoting terrorism through groups such as the Haqqani Network and Hezb-e-Islami. Similarly, Islamabad’s inability to crack down on the Lashkar-e-Taiba—even though it remains “a serious threat to Western interests”—and to keep its promise of sharing intelligence with India on the 2008 Mumbai attacks has been papered over. Instead, Pakistan’s inaction has been linked to the absence of peace talks between New Delhi and Islamabad last year. Even though the peace process has resumed, Pakistan remains intransigent, prompting British Prime Minister David Cameron to say that it cannot be allowed to “promote the export of terror”. In contrast, the response of the US report to Pakistan’s continuing obstinacy is almost a meek request: “It needs to take further action against this group…” -- W Pal Sidhu
In 2002, the Bush administration’s National Security Strategy (NSS) made it clear that America, with Britain’s help, intends to increase terrorism by chasing terrorists around the world instead of capturing them, or, better still, addressing their grievances – this is the real world, after all, which is dominated by financial interests, so there’s no time for rational solutions here. The NSS reads: “The United States and countries cooperating with us must not allow the terrorists to develop new home bases. Together, we will seek to deny them sanctuary at every turn.”
The policy of giving terrorists no “haven”, rather than working to end terrorism, gives the US and Britain the excuse to “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars” by chasing terrorists around the globe and, more worryingly, to actually cause terrorism. -- Tim Coles
Bravo. Bangladesh has done it. It has successfully reversed the cynical Islamisation of its local General Zia. Not only is one fortified by their action that a Muslim majority nation state is capable of rolling back the Islamist project but as a Pakistani I am glad that at least some part of the former original Pakistan is now firmly allied with the principles that Jinnah laid down in his famous August 11, 1947 speech. -- Yasser Latif Hamdani
Professor M. Hasan, a retired geographer and an expert member of the Rajiv Gandhi Social Security Mission, told Frontline from Jodhpur that the police, never immune from political interference, always drew hasty conclusions when a blast occurred. For instance, he said, he and a few others were not allowed to organise peace meetings after the Jaipur blasts in May 2008 in which 60 people were killed. He said some senior police officers were “hell bent” on creating rifts, and that sections of the media also played a damning role by declaring a group of Muslim doctors, who had been arrested, guilty. -- T.K. Rajalakshmi
To expect the US to ensure that Pakistan would not resort to terrorist attacks against Indian targets would be unrealistic. It has not happened all these years....The Pakistan government has pre-empted a military takeover by General Kayani by giving him a three-year extension and thereby conceding indirectly that the army and Kayani in particular will guide and direct the government in Pakistan. A former ISI chief who continues to employ people like ex-ISI chief Hameed Gul could not be expected to think in terms of any peaceful settlement with India on pending issues. India should, therefore, be prepared for all eventualities and set its own house in order. The Kashmir issue should be sorted out after purposeful talks with the Kashmiri people, the National Conference, the PDP, the Hurriyat and others. A solution is not difficult to arrive at if sincere efforts are made at all levels. And as for terrorist attacks from across the border, India has to anticipate them and be prepared and alert. -- T.V. Rajeswar
The Pakistan Army has become adept at manufacturing ‘victories’ against ‘terrorism’ in theatre after theatre in the country, though each year has seen increasing terrorism-related fatalities in the country. In this bold history of triumph, on June 1, 2010, the Army had declared another victory over ‘terrorism’ in its Operation Khwakh Ba De Sham (I Will See You) in the Orakzai Agency of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), adding that military operations in the area had been ‘completed’ and civilians could expect to return home soon. -- Tushar Ranjan Mohanty
The Sheikh Hasina regime has done extraordinarily well in stabilizing a country which, only a few years ago, had come to be regarded as an economic and political basket case and a centre of Islamist extremism and terrorism. However, radical Islamist groupings in the country, despite the body blows they have received in the recent past, retain a significant cadre base and residual capacities to create havoc in the country. -- Anshuman Behera
THE DEBATE about ‘Hindu terror’ requires, firstly, a serious rectification and amendment. Just as there is nothing called ‘Muslim terror’ or ‘Islamic terror’, there is also nothing that corresponds to ‘Hindu terror’. The individuals — with affiliations to what we know as the sangh parivar — who have been linked to events of Ajmer, Malegaon and Hyderabad are sangh parivar terrorists or Hindutva terrorists. Therefore, the phenomenon that we associate with individuals, who happen to be Hindus, indulging in acts of terror is Hindutva terror or sangh parivar terror. Having stated this, Hindutva terror is a greater threat than any form of terror facing the country. The threat from the al- Qaida or the Lashkar is easily identifiable; it is external and these organisations fashion themselves as jihadi outfits. There is no camouflage or pretence about their goals, aims and methods. In sharp contrast, the legitimacy for Hindutva terror comes not merely from members that are formally part of the sangh parivar, but from a cross- section of Hindus in Indian society, but primarily Hindus from the ever expanding middle class. ...
From the 19th century onwards, Hindu nationalists have argued that retaliatory violence is a legitimate form of dealing with the ‘enemy’. In doing so, they argued that in order to protect dharma, which was conveniently translated as religion, Hindus needed to resort to violence when required. The question of the legitimacy of resorting to violence was always arbitrary.
Reverting to models in the mythological past, where the antagonism between devas and asuras inevitably led to the violent vanquishing of the asuras, Hindu nationalists ‘ democratised’ the right to label their adversaries as asuras and arrogated the right to vanquish these foes to themselves....
Of course, we will continue to mouth easy and corny platitudes like ‘ Hinduism is a way of life’, without asking the logical question as to whose way of life it is. Is it Pragna Bharati’s way of life or Narendra Modi’s way of life? Is it Mohan Bhagwat’s way of life or is it Advani’s way of life? In either case, there is not much to choose from. Each time Lashkar terrorists attack a spot in India, there would be a retaliatory strike in a mosque or a dargah, while we shall continue to look the other way and perfect our two- century long act of self- deception. -- Jyotirmaya Sharma
What role did the ISI’s collusion with the Taliban play in the increasing fatalities suffered by the US troops in Afghanistan? How could the Obama Administration have decided to step up military and economic assistance to Pakistan despite being aware of the “reality” of the ISI’s role in helping the Taliban in its operations against the US and Nato troops. Previously, it used to be believed that the ISI was using terrorist organisations only to kill Indian nationals and to target Indian interests. The leaked documents clearly indicate that the ISI had been knowingly helping the Taliban, another terrorist organisation, against the troops of the US-led Nato forces and the Afghan Security Forces. -- B Raman
FIFTEEN years separate the bomb blasts that shook Mumbai in March 1993 and took more than 250 lives, and the jihadi commando assault of November 2008 where 157 people were gunned down. A lot changed in that period apparently except one thing— the unrelenting hostility of the Pakistani establishment towards India. This has been brought home to us from the remarks on Tuesday of the National Security Advisor, Shivshankar Menon who confirmed what Home Secretary G. K. Pillai had said earlier: That the Headley interrogation had revealed that there are clear links between the terrorists, official establishments and intelligence agencies in Pakistan. And, in Menon’s bleak words, “the link was getting stronger”...
The failure of the recent talks between the External Affairs Minister S. M. Krishna and his Pakistani counterpart Shah Mahmood Qureshi has been attributed in part to GK Pillai’s statement that the Inter Services Intelligence Directorate was involved in the 2008 Mumbai operation from the beginning to the end.
Mr Pillai does tend to misspeak, and you can question the timing of his statement.
But surely there is something bizarre about taking umbrage to his timing but not what he said. And what he said is indeed sensational. If an agency of the Pakistan government was involved in the Mumbai attack, why is India bothering to talk peace with that government? The Indian government’s policy works on the belief that there is a tussle between the civilian and military wings of the Pakistan establishment, and that it is in India’s strategic interest to back the civilians so as to forever marginalise the self appointed guardians of the Islamic Republic— the Pakistan Army.
All this is possibly true, but not on a practical timeline. Policy is usually made for a two to five year time horizon, with a perspective of, say, ten years. The civilians may triumph in Pakistan, but given present trends, they will do so at an indeterminate time in the future which has no practical benefit for India. - Manoj Joshi
TIMES NOW acquires transcripts of a conversation between hard-line separatists and mobs, exposing how they are trying to instigate violence in the Kashmir valley.
The role of the hard-line faction of the Hurriyat has been exposed. TIMES NOW has acquired transcripts of a conversation between Hurriyat Geelani faction leader and his paid activist.
The conversation very clearly exposes how the hard-line separatists are trying their best to instigate violence during the protests. The Hurriyat Geelani faction leader is heard instigating his activist to ensure that at least 10-15 people are martyred.
8 Jul 2010: Following is the transcript of the conversation between the Hurriyat leader and the paid protester:
Hurriyat (G) leader Ghulam Mohd Dar: I heard there is a protest march in Budgam.
Local Hurriyat activist, Shabir Ahmed: Where?
Ghulam Mohd Dar: Budgam
Shabir Ahmed: I believe one small one had. Where will they go right now?
Ghulam Mohd Dar: No, I have heard that it's a massive one - nearly 30,000
Shabir Ahmed: 30,000?
Ghulam Mohd Dar: I swear, 30,000 of them. Protest near the Magam Forest check post. You enjoy your salaries without doing anything for it.
Shabir Ahmed: You have to understand the reason for it
Ghulam Mohd Dar: Tell me
Shabir Ahmed: The crowds get too big to handle at times. Lots of people join in and it's difficult to manage them
Ghulam Mohd Dar: We want 10-15 more martyred. Did you hear that?
(loud noise apparently of rally)
Ghulam Mohd Dar: Did you hear that? That's the rally in Budgam
Local Hurriyat activist, Shabir Ahmed: Ok