A Brutalized Military

By Rupali Gaurav

The film footage shown by an Indian TV channel says it all. The brutality and arrogance of the military in India is on full display in this sequence showing a young Assamese girl lashing out at an Indian soldier in full uniform and armed to the teeth. The soldier had made lewd suggestions and touched her as she worked in a shop. For a young unarmed girl to retaliate in this way the provocation must have been great.

This is not the first time that such an incident has taken place. The furore over the disgusting incident in Shopian Kashmir has not died down. Two young Kashmiri girls were brutally raped and then killed by Indian soldiers in Indian Held Kashmir as the Pakistanis call the area forcibly occupied by India against a UN Resolution calling for plebiscite and against the wishes of the Kashmiris. The incident provoked a violent outburst in the Kashmir State Parliament from a member who has favored resolution through a political channel. Kashmiris on both sides of the Line of Control that divides Kashmir between India and Pakistan, already alienated from Indians now hate them. There is a long list of rights violations, rapes and unspeakable atrocities committed by soldiers in Kashmir and India’s North Eastern States.

Read Complete Article : A Brutalized Military

‘India has no dossier on Balochistan’: Pakistan, India need to build trust: Singh

* Indian PM says Pakistan has formally admitted LT involvement in Mumbai attacks
* Information sought by Pakistan will be provided soon

By Iftikhar Gilani

NEW DELHI: Defending the Sharm el-Sheikh joint statement between India and Pakistan, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Wednesday asserted the two nuclear powers have to trust each other or risk war.

Intervening in a Lok Sabha debate, he said Pakistan had not provided any dossier on Indian involvement in Balochistan, adding New Delhi would verify Pakistan’s claims on tackling terrorism before moving forward. He said the Indo-Pak dialogue should be seen in the context of Pakistan formally admitting that its nationals had conducted the 26/11 attacks and the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba (LT) had conspired, financed and executed the attack. However, he added, further steps were expected. “We need evidence that action is being taken to outlaw, disarm and shut down the terrorist groups and their front organisations that still operate on Pakistani soil and which continue to pose a great threat to our country,” AFP quoted him as saying.

Soon: He said some information requested by Pakistan through the dossier would be provided shortly. He said dialogue and engagement were best, as “unless we talk directly to Pakistan, we will have to rely on a third party”. Singh said the Balochistan issue was added to the joint statement at Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani’s request, adding he had assured the Pakistani premier that India was “not interested in destabilising Pakistan”.

Balochistan and India

By Hamid Mir

Why Manmohan Singh is under fire in India? He is the first ever Indian prime minister who is being blamed by the Indian opposition and media for surrendering to Pakistan in Sharm el-Sheikh. Many Indians are not happy over the reference of Balochistan in the joint statement released in Sharm el- Sheikh after the meeting of Indian and Pakistani prime ministers. Some Indians think that Manmohan stabbed them in the back by accepting the Indian interference in Balochistan. There are reports that Pakistani prime minister pressurised Manmohan in Sharm el-Sheikh by handing over a dossier of alleged Indian cross-border terrorism in Balochistan and that was how Indian prime minister was forced to accept the word Balochistan in the joint statement.

I was present in Sharm el-Shekh. I remember that many Indian journalists were shocked after reading the joint statement. They started asking me that why Balochistan is mentioned in the statement? In fact many of them were not aware like many common Indians that what is going on in Balochistan. Within a few hours I started receiving calls from many Indian TV channels that what evidence was shown by Pakistan to Manmohan Singh about the alleged Indian involvement in Balochistan? In fact the Pakistani prime minister did mention Balochistan to Manmohan Singh but he never handed over any dossier to his Indian counterpart.

The situation in Balochistan came under detailed discussion during the first meeting of the foreign secretaries in the evening of July 14 in Sharm el-Sheikh which took place two days before the meeting of Manmohan and Yousaf Raza Gilani. Pakistani foreign secretary Salman Bashir told Shiv Shankar Menon that India must delink the talks from terrorism otherwise Pakistan will be forced to produce at least “three Indian Ajmal Kasab’s” in front of international media who were directly or indirectly part of the terrorist activities in Balochistan and Pakistan will easily establish that Indian consulate in Afghan city of Kandhar is actually a control room of all the terrorist activities organised by the separatist Balochistan Liberation Army.

Salman Bashir told Indian foreign secretary that both Pakistan and India cannot afford a blame game right now. If Pakistan will come out with evidence that Indians are responsible for attacking Chinese engineers in the Gwadar port city it may damage Indian credibility on one side but it will also spread more anti-India feelings in Pakistan and extremist forces will be the ultimate beneficiaries.

First of all this new blame game will only help those extremist forces who successfully organised attacks in Mumbai on Nov 26, 2008, just to derail the India-Pakistan peace process. Secondly it will also harm relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan. The US does not want any tensions between Islamabad and Kabul at this stage because NATO forces are trying their best to conduct a new presidential election in Afghanistan in coming few weeks. Thirdly the PPP led coalition government is aware that Balochistan is not a serious dispute like Jammu and Kashmir, it’s a problem of provincial rights and instead of internationalising the problem Islamabad should address the problem realistically. Islamabad cannot get away by just blaming India for unrest in Balochistan. Behind the scene talks with many Baloch militants are going on and good news may come out soon in this regard.

Pakistan is making noise against the Indian involvement in Balochistan insurgency in a very careful, well-calculated and “limited manner.” Recently a prominent US magazine Foreign Affairs (March 2009) published the report of a roundtable discussion on the causes of instability in Pakistan. Christine Fair of RAND Corporation clearly said in that discussion that “having visited the Indian mission in Zahedan, Iran, I can assure you they are not issuing visas as the main activity. Indian officials have told me privately that they are pumping money into Balochistan.”

This allegation came from a very credible American scholar who recently visited Indian consulate in Zahedan. Now where is Zahedan? It is the capital of Iranian province Sistan-o-Balochistan bordering Pakistan. More than two million Balochis live in the Iranian side of Balochistan. Iran is building a big port of Chabahar in the same area with the active help of India. Top Iranian leaders have alleged many times that American CIA is supporting Iranian Balochis to destabilise the Islamic Republic. Famous American journalist Seymour Hersh admitted in July 2008 that Bush administration gave million of dollars to a separatist Iranian group “Jandallah” which is responsible for violence in Iranian part of Baluchistan.

The presence of China in Pakistani Balochistan is also a problem for US administration. The Chinese are accused of using Gwadar as a listening post for monitoring US military activities in the Persian Gulf. If Pakistan will play India card in Balochistan, many anti-US forces in Pakistan will ask that why Pakistan is silent over the role of CIA in Baluchistan which is using Jandallah against Iran? We must know that Balochis are Kurds of South Asia. Kurds are divided in Iran, Turkey and Iraq while the Balochis are divided in Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan. Separatist groups in Pakistan and Iran want the unification of the Baloch areas which is not acceptable to both the countries.

Musharraf gave the Gwadar port city to Chinese for development in 2003.That was the beginning of a new problem. Three Chinese engineers were killed and nine were injured on May 3rd 2004 in a remote controlled car bomb attack. Two months after that incident, Pakistan claimed on July 2nd 2004 first time that India was involved in that bomb attack. Local Baluchis were not happy over the employment of many non-Baluchis in the main development projects of their province. They also wanted a fairer share of royalties generated by the production of natural gas in their province. Instead of addressing their griviences, Musharraf regime launched a third military operation against them in 2005 which further aggravated the situation.

Why Indians must discuss Balochistan with Pakistan? Balochistan will be the route of at least two multinational gas pipelines. One will come from Turkmenistan to Pakistan via Afghanistan; the other will come from Iran to Pakistan. India could be a beneficiary of both the gas pipelines. These two pipelines could be extended from Multan to New Delhi. I think there is no harm for India to discuss Balochistan with Pakistan because stability in Balochistan will ultimately benefit India.

Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, China and India should join hands with each other, stop proxy wars in Kashmir and Baluchistan as soon as possible and they can change the fate of the whole region.

The writer is the executive editor of Geo TV in Islamabad. Email: hamid.mir@geo.tv

India’s Arihant — upping the psychological ante

Shireen M Mazari

While Pakistan’s decision makers squabble over whether to go ahead and implement the 2008 decision of buying German submarines or alter course and seek more French subs instead, India has put its prototype nuclear powered submarine, INS Arihant, into the waters. Incidentally, those in Pakistan who have been ranting for years over the use of Islamic warrior names for our missiles seem absurdly mute in commenting on India’s aggressive usage of Hindu mythology warrior names not only for its missiles but now also for its nuclear-powered submarine. Of course, the reality is that the nuclear reactor of this submarine will not go critical till 2012, so at the moment Arihant is more of a symbolic reflection of where India is headed in terms of its nuclear arsenal. Nevertheless, the development has signalled the nuclearisation of the Indian Ocean by a littoral state – since nuclear weapons have been present in this Ocean through the military presence of the external nuclear powers, especially the US.

That is one major reason why the US, France and UK always opposed the UN General Assembly’s efforts to make the Indian Ocean a weapon-free “zone of peace” – as reflected in the first UN GA Resolution of 16 December 1971(2832:XXVI). Ironically, along with the Soviet Union, India was a major force behind this Non-Aligned Movement-supported UN resolution. But then this has been the hallmark of Indian security policy: seeking time through multilateral diplomatic moves while it builds its military capability. In contrast to the Indian position on the Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace resolution, the US, France and the UK always voted against this idea and in 1989 they chose to withdraw from the 44 member UN committee on this issue that had been set up in 1972. The US in fact demanded that the committee be eliminated so as to reduce UN spending and we know how this whole issue simply died for lack of visible progress. Now that India has also moved towards nuclear militarisation of the Indian Ocean, it will be difficult to see any revival of the zone of peace proposal for this region in the future. With the launching of the Arihant, India has moved still further away from being a proponent of nuclear disarmament to being a projector of nuclear force. Strategic rationality makes it incumbent on Pakistan to seek to restore the nuclear balance for the future.

However, this should not be a major issue for us even in financial terms, as long as the lure of commissions does not distort or destroy our strategic interests. We already have conventional submarines including the Agosta-type which are not only capable of carrying nuclear warheads, but can be upgraded to being fitted with air-independent propulsion technology (AIP) specifically designed to allow conventional subs to remain submerged for longer periods. That is the main advantage of nuclear-powered submarines, along with the speed element – they do not need to surface like conventional subs that need to surface after short periods of being submerged and therefore become vulnerable. AIP technology is specifically designed for conventional subs and the Germans have been in the forefront of this technological development, although the Agostas can also be upgraded.

It is unfortunate that Pakistan’s purchase of subs has been delayed apparently over the commissions lure, because now the international community will make it harder for this country to acquire these subs. Have we learnt no lessons from what happened to Pakistan in 1974 after the Indian nuclear test? India tested and Pakistan was penalised! The Canadians withdrew from KANUPP despite IAEA safeguards and a legal agreement. There is nothing to suggest that things will be different this time round – given how Hillary Clinton practically blessed Indian militarisation with a new defence pact. Besides Pakistan’s pathetic record of asserting legal agreements with its allies makes us easy victims of foreign pressure and diktat – remember the replacement of F-16s with wheat and soya beans? Not only did we lose our money, but before the US finally retracted on the deal, we were made to pay parking charges for these F-16s also! But we always forget US abuse and present ourselves for more of the same whenever the occasion arises!

Coming back to the Indian nuclear powered submarine – it should be pointed out that we do not yet know how it will perform once its reactor goes critical. Will it actually have the speed and capability – given that it has been built with Soviet/Russian technology and the fate of many Soviet/Russian subs lies at the bottom of the seas – taking a heavy toll of human life and reflecting the limitations of Soviet weapon systems? A major disadvantage of nuclear-powered subs is that they are noisier because they have to keep the reactor powered on all the time so if conventional subs can acquire longer submergeable capability through AIP technology – although it will still not be the same as a nuclear-driven sub – the imbalance can be offset to some extent.

Sea-launched nuclear missiles are central to second strike capability which acts as a stabiliser in the context of nuclear strategy since it reduces the imperatives for first strike. In this context, although Pakistan has not officially made any declarations regarding the development of this capability, it is now fairly well-established that we are already on the way to ensuring this second strike capability. It is also now recognised that we have had more success with missile development than India – probably because we have kept our missile ranges and types limited and focused more on developing solid fuelled delivery systems (which, again, are more stable) and reducing circular error probabilities. India, on the other hand, chose to have a wide-ranging missile programme including seeking the development of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). While we have stabilised our cruise missile as well as moved towards the beginnings of sea-launched ballistic missiles, from all accounts, India has not been too successful in both these fields – especially with the Sagarika (which is to be its sea-launched missile) in surface tests. So if India is to gain any advantage from its nuclear-powered submarine, assuming it will perform as expected once its reactor goes critical, it will have to work more on its delivery systems.

For Pakistan while there is no need to go into panic mode, we will have to stop sacrificing good deals simply because of the greed over commissions. The fact that a French inquiry has hinted at commissions lying at the root of the death of the French engineers in Karachi should be a sobering moment for any leadership. But the brazenness with which our successive decision-makers have been proceeding, with scant regard for propriety and wastage of limited national resources, shows that no lessons have been learnt – nor is there any desire to learn from even recent history.

Worse still, our rulers are full of bombast but are unwilling to take proactive concrete actions. Take the case of Balochistan. Political leaders of all shades have been repeating ad nauseum the need for political healing and economic investment in that province but why have the first steps in that direction not been taken beyond publication of reports and statements? Why is the leadership so hesitant to declare a general amnesty for all Baloch political figures and the release of all political prisoners? When we can talk to militants (and we should if they are our own people prepared to accept the writ of the state) and be allied to the Americans who continue to kill our people through drone attacks, why are we so unwilling to begin the healing process with the Baloch people and their leaders? Why are we allowing our detractors to provide support for the dissidents instead of taking the punch out of their dissidence by granting them a one-time amnesty if they accept the writ of the state? How can we rise to external military challenges posed by countries like India and the US when we are unable to deal with our own people? Our weakness lies within ourselves reflecting a psychological confidence deficit which makes the rulers aggressive and non-accommodative with the nation and timorous before external players. The Indians and Americans are exploiting this well which is why the Indian’s are making grandiose statements about a submarine that has yet to show how it performs!

The writer is a defence analyst. Email: callstr@hotmail.com

Pakistan turns on its jihadi assets

By Syed Saleem Shahzad

KARACHI – Intense United States efforts and assurances have put Pakistan and India on track to renew their dialogue process over key contentious issues, such as divided Kashmir.

An important upshot of this is that Islamabad has begun a crackdown on jihadi assets its Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) raised in the 1990s for asymmetric warfare against India after losing three battles against its much bigger neighbor.

Asia Times Online has learned that a nascent crackdown on militants in Pakistan’s largest province, Punjab, will turn into a major operation and the remnants of all defunct jihadi organizations, no matter how peacefully they operate inside Pakistan, will be dismantled. A showcase of this exercise took place Monday in Anti-Terrorist Court II in Rawalpindi, the garrison city twinned with the capital Islamabad.

In front of a mass media presence, yesterday’s hero of the Pakistani military establishment, former Pakistani member of parliament Shah Abdul Aziz, appeared with a shaven head like any ordinary criminal and was ordered on judicial remand to be detained in Adyala Jail Rawalpindi in connection with the abduction and murder by the Taliban of a Polish engineer, Piotr Stanczak, in September 2008. He was beheaded by militants in February after talks with the government for the release of captured Taliban members failed.

Although Aziz was ordered to be jailed, Asia Times Online contacts say that he was bundled off to an intelligence safe house for further interrogation.

“This is the same Shah Abdul Aziz who delivered [Pakistan Taliban leader] Baitullah Mehsud’s letter written to the chief of army staff Ashfaq Parvez Kiani a few months ago as part of his job to get peace between the army and the militants,” retired squadron leader Khalid Khawaja told Asia Times Online. Khawaja is a former ISI official and now a human-rights activist for “disappeared” victims of the “war on terror”.

Military spokesperson Major General Athar Abbas, however, while confirming to the British Broadcasting Corporation that Aziz was in custody, denied the delivery of any letter to the army chief. Instead, he said the authorities had recovered a letter from Aziz written by Baitullah to retired Lieutenant General Hamid Gul, a former head of the ISI.

Nevertheless, Aziz was clearly on the military’s bandwagon. He was the Taliban’s commander in the Pul-e-Khomri region in Afghanistan during the Taliban regime in the late 1990s. After the US invasion in 2001 that toppled the Taliban, he hosted displaced Arab families in Pakistan and strongly advocated closer ties between the military and militants. He has been involved in numerous peace initiatives, ranging from the South Waziristan operations in 2004 to the crackdown on the radical Lal Masjid (Red Mosque) in Islamabad in 2007, as well as the moves to release an abducted Canadian journalist in North Waziristan.

In 2002, he won a seat in the National Assembly from Karak in North-West Frontier Province (NWFP). His election meetings were attended by top Taliban leaders and he became know as the voice of the mujahideen in the assembly. (He lost his seat in 2008.)

Despite his involvement in peace talks, the military came to suspect that Aziz was more of a spin doctor for the militants and on May 27 this year he was apprehended at the residence of Lal Masjid prayer leader Maulana Abdul Aziz, along with one Fidaullah, the alleged mastermind of various acts of terror in Islamabad.

According to a police statement, Aziz was arrested after another terror suspect, Ataullah Khan, a Taliban militant, said that Aziz had ordered the killing of Stanczak.

“This is a ridiculous claim,” Khawaja commented to Asia Times Online. “Ataullah was picked up by security personnel a few months ago from Kohat [in NWFP].

His parents filed a case over his disappearance. But the police say he was arrested in Peshawar on July 16 and they came up with the statement that he had assassinated the Polish engineer on Shah Abdul Aziz’s instructions. Yet Aziz is on record as having already been picked up by the ISI on May 27. If he was arrested on the basis of a statement given to the police on July 16, why was he picked up on May 27?” Khawaja asked.

Aziz’s is a very high-profile case that has come as a surprise. Most people thought that after his apprehension on May 27 he would have been quickly released with a warning. However, the manner in which he was interrogated in an ISI safe house and publicly humiliated in court marks a clear change in the military’s mindset concerning its former Islamist allies – they are now believed to be a serious liability.

A commander of the banned militant group Jaish-e-Mohammad (Army of Mohammad), Habibur Rahman, who was killed last week in the southern Punjab city of Laya, is another case in point.

Rahman fought against Indian forces in Indian-administered Kashmir, then, after the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, he battled foreign troops there before being arrested by Pakistani security agencies.

During interrogation it was found that he was not involved with al-Qaeda, but his connection with the Taliban put him into the category of dangerous suspects (Schedule 4). He was released, but picked up again by police a few weeks ago in what is known as an unregistered case. His family filed a petition in the Supreme Court, which last week requested the concerned authorities to produce him before the court. Instead, his body was delivered to his relatives – he had died during interrogation.

Commenting on these cases, former ISI official Khawaja told Asia Times Online, “The role of the Punjab government run by the Pakistan Muslim League led by Nawaz Sharif is pathetic. They took votes to avenge [the military raid] on Lal Masjid, but now the Punjab police are using the worst sort of tactics against religious people. I warn Nawaz Sharif and his chief minister brother, Shebaz Sharif, to learn the lesson of [former president general] Pervez Musharraf, who took steps to appease the Americans, and then faced a dire situation. We will not let anybody do such things without accountability.”

Whatever the backlash that might come from the militants, the point is Pakistan has made a significant shift and taken Washington’s desires to heart.

Another instance of this is that this month Pakistan finally handed over a dossier to the Indian government on the terror attack on Mumbai last November in which more than 150 people were killed. Pakistan admitted the involvement of the militant Laskhar-e-Taiba (LeT) group and accepted that the entire operation had been planned and facilitated in Pakistan. Five LeT officials were named in the dossier.

This new mood of cooperation was reflected in a joint statement issued by Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and Indian Premier Manmohan Singh in Egypt on July 16 in which they agreed to cooperate in the fight against terrorism as a part of a broader pledge to improve bilateral ties.

“The [ruling] Congress [party] is confident [that] when the [Indian] prime minister speaks in parliament on July 29, he will set at rest all questions, all apprehensions and speculation relating to the Indo-Pak joint statement at Sharm-el-Sheikh in Egypt,” Congress general secretary Janardan Dwivedi was reported as saying.

Syed Saleem Shahzad is Asia Times Online’s Pakistan Bureau Chief. He can be reached at saleem_shahzad2002@yahoo.com

(Copyright 2009 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)

Taliban again reject Karzai offer to hold peace talks

* Top UN official urges Taliban to let polls go ahead saying it’s in Afghanistan’s interest

KABUL: A confident President Hamid Karzai offered peace talks to Taliban militants if they renounce violence and called for a new relationship with the West if he wins a second term in next month’s presidential election.

Karzai is considered the favorite in the Aug. 20 vote. But his chances could hinge on his fellow Pashtuns in the turbulent south and east, where US and British forces this month have suffered some of their highest casualties of the eight-year war. His only serious competition in the 39-candidate field is believed to be former Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah, who could force a runoff if a low turnout among the Pashtuns, the country’s biggest ethnic group and the heart of the Taliban ranks, prevents Karzai from claiming a majority of the votes.

In an interview Monday with The Associated Press in his office, Karzai reached out to disaffected Pashtuns, calling for a dialogue with Taliban members who are not affiliated with Al Qaeda and who are willing to repudiate violence “and announce that publicly.” But the president said he was not yet prepared to discuss the key Taliban demand – a timetable for the withdrawal of all foreign troops – because he contends their continued presence is in the national interest.

“The Afghan people still want a fundamentally strong relation with the United States,” Karzai said. “I also know and the Afghan people also know that the presence of international troops in Afghanistan is bringing stability to Afghanistan.” Nevertheless, Karzai said the US and NATO presence must be based on a partnership where “the partners are not losing their lives, their property, their dignity as a consequence of that partnership.”

A Taliban spokesman, Qari Yousef Ahmadi, rejected talks, saying the insurgents would not discuss a ceasefire with any government that was a “servant of the foreigners.” He urged Afghans not to take part in next month’s election. During the interview, Karzai also said he wants operations at the US-run prison at Bagram Air Base, where about 600 Afghans are held, re-evaluated and inmates released unless there is evidence linking them to terrorism.

Elections: The top UN official in Afghanistan on Tuesday urged Taliban militants not to disrupt landmark polls. “The security concerns are of course significant,” said Kai Eide, the head of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA). “My message to everybody including Taliban is it is in the interests of each and every Afghan that elections can take place in each province, in each district, in each village, so that all Afghans can express their views and cast their vote.” Eide said he was concerned about security in provinces where foreign and local forces are still battling Taliban rebels, but said it was “not in the interests of anybody” if large numbers of Afghans were unable to vote. agencies

No deal on settlements – Mitchell

US envoy George Mitchell and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu could not agree on a Jewish settlement freeze in talks today but said negotiations were advancing.

“We are making progress,” Mr Netanyahu told reporters.

“I think we held a very important and productive talk and we will continue with the effort which, I believe, in the end will succeed in advancing peace and security between us and our Palestinian neighbours and the region in general.”

After more than two hours of talks with Mr Netanyahu, Mr Mitchell said: “We have made good progress.”

Mr Mitchell said he looked forward to continuing discussions with Netanyahu and moving towards a “comprehensive peace” envisioned by US president Barack Obama. He did not say when he would next meet the Israeli leader.

Mr Obama’s demand, in line with a 2003 peace plan, to freeze Israeli settlement in the occupied West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem has met stiff resistance from Mr Netanyahu, the most serious rift in US-Israeli relations in a decade.

Neither Mr Mitchell nor Mr Netanyahu, who in his public comments has played down the dispute with Washington, mentioned settlements in their public remarks.

Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas has said peace talks with Israel, suspended since late last year, could not resume unless Mr Netanyahu stopped all settlement activity.

Israeli defence minister Ehud Barak has publicly raised the possibility of a deal under which Israel would halt construction in settlements but complete projects under way in return for steps by Arab countries to normalise relations with Israel.

Arab moves towards commercial or diplomatic ties with Israel could help Netanyahu persuade partners in his right-leaning coalition to accept a compromise on settlements.

But there has been little indication Arab countries in the region would make such gestures without a settlement freeze.

At a meeting in the West Bank on Monday, Mr Mitchell informed Mr Abbas there was “still a gap between us and the Israelis on the settlements issue”, a Palestinian official said.

After seeing Mr Mitchell, Mr Netanyahu visited the Israeli-controlled Allenby Bridge crossing between the West Bank and Jordan. He has ordered its opening hours to be extended to ease the movement of Palestinian commercial goods.

“We are not waiting, we are doing. We are opening roadblocks, we are opening ties, we are opening the roads to peace,” Mr Netanyahu told reporters.

Separately, the Israeli leader called on Palestinians in the Gaza Strip to topple Islamist Hamas rule there. Some 1,400 Palestinians and 14 Israelis died in fighting during an Israeli offensive in Gaza this year.

Mr Netanyahu said Hamas was “not endearing itself to the Palestinians in Gaza,” Israeli media reported. “Were it possible for them [Palestinians] to cast off the regime they would do so, and I tell you, they will someday be capable of doing so,” he added, the reports said.

Mr Mitchell has praised Israel for removing some of its military checkpoints in the West Bank in a declared bid to bolster the Western-backed Abbas and the Palestinian economy. But Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat said on Monday that moving a “handful” of roadblocks changed little.

Mr Netanyahu is to hold talks on Wednesday with US national security adviser Jim Jones and other Middle East specialists sent to the region by the White House.

Reuters

Israel should stop settlements in Palestine: Haroon

NEW YORK: Pakistan on Monday called for Israel to stop building illegal settlement in the West Bank and East Jerusalem that were creating “serious implications” for the Middle East peace process.

UN Ambassador Abdullah Hussain Haroon reaffirmed in the UN Security Council Pakistan’s strong support to the Palestinians’ aspirations for statehood on the basis of the pre-1967 borders, with Al-Quds as its capital. Debating the situation in the Middle East, he said the plight of the Palestinian people was ‘intolerable’ and their legitimate aspirations for freedom and dignity, as well as an independent and sovereign state of their own, could not be held back any longer. app

US, Pakistan both offer head money for Baitullah

By Rahimullah Yusufzai

PESHAWAR: Baitullah Mehsud has become the only Pakistani with a head-money separately announced by both the Pakistan government and the US.

However, the head money placed on him by the US is far larger than that announced by Pakistan. It is offering $5 million, or Rs410 million, for his capture. In comparison, the Pakistan government offer of Rs50 million, or $600,000, for credible information that could lead to his capture is peanuts.

As someone remarked, bounty-hunters would inform the US authorities to claim the head money instead of telling the Pakistan government due to the much bigger amount of dollars being offered by the Americans. Requesting anonymity, he said the two governments should pool their efforts not only in terms of the head money they are offering for Baitullah Mehsud, or BM as he is called by officials of the intelligence agencies, but also getting him killed or captured through a coordinated strategy.

The belated announcement of head-money by the Pakistan government for Baitullah Mehsud and 10 other Pakistani Taliban commanders was made through an advertisement carried by newspapers on Sunday. All 11 of them are affiliated to the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and belong to Fata.

In terms of the head-money, Baitullah Mehsud is followed by his deputy Maulana Faqir Muhammad, who is the Taliban commander for Bajaur. Head money for him is Rs15 million or $182,000.

The head money for five other TTP commanders – Abdul Wali alias Omar Khalid and Qari Shakeel from Mohmand Agency, Tariq Afridi from Darra Adamkhel and Hakimullah Mahsud and Qari Hussain from South Waziristan – is Rs10 million each or $122,000.

Qari Hussain’s name in the list of wanted militants with head-money should be enough to deny recent reports in sections of the media that he was killed in the June 23 US drone attack on a funeral gathering in South Waziristan. Known as the ìUstad-e-Fidayeen,î or trainer of suicide bombers, Qari Hussain personally phoned some reporters in Peshawar and Dera Ismail Khan to refute media reports that he had been killed.

For the remaining four TTP commanders, the head-money is Rs5 million or $61,000. They are Qari Ziaur Rahman, who in fact is an Afghan national living in Bajaur, Fazal Saeed Otayzai from Kurram Agency, Mufti Ilyas from Darra Adamkhel, and Waliur Rahman alias Aliur Rahman from Bajaur.

The newspaper advertisement announcing head-money for the 11 TTP commanders didnít carry their pictures. Government officials handling the matter said they didnít have any pictures of the 11 wanted men. This was strange and shows the lack of intelligence on the TTP leadership that is presently available with the government.

The newspaper advertisement, however, provided the name of the fathers of the 11 men, their tribe and address. Bounty-hunters were promised secrecy in case they came forward with credible information for nabbing the wanted men, alive or dead.

Four phone numbers were also listed for informers having information about the whereabouts of Baitullah Mahsud and the 10 other men. However, efforts to reach those phone numbers turned out to be tough exercise. There was no response from the toll-free number 0800-15015 even after a long wait and effort. The phone rang on the other side when the number 091-9210210 was contacted but nobody answered. The phone number 091-9210457 remained busy whenever it was called. Only the fourth number, 091-9212158, could be reached after some effort. The operator who answered said about 20 people made calls on the phone number from places like Peshawar, Malakand and Karak but nobody provided any information about the whereabouts of the wanted Taliban commanders. ìThey were just curious. They wanted to know more about the head-money and the wanted militants,î he said while hastening to request anonymity.

The US announcement of $5 million head-money for Baitullah Mahsud a few months ago catapulted him to the rank of a senior al-Qaeda leader. Such a huge amount hasnít been offered for the capture of most of al-Qaeda and Taliban commanders who until now have been killed or captured. Though he is a Pakistani Taliban commander loyal to the Afghan Taliban leader Mulla Muhammad Omar, the US government accused him of being an al-Qaeda facilitator. Baitullah Mahsud was also accused of sending fighters to Afghanistan to attack the US-led coalition forces.

It may be added that Osama bin Laden and his deputy Dr Ayman al-Zawahiri carry head-money of $25 million each. The head-money for Afghan Taliban leader Mulla Muhammad Omar is $10 million. Despite such huge amounts, the three men are still at large. In fact, there have been no sightings of bin Laden, Zawahiri and Mulla Omar since the collapse of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan in December 2001 and all reports regarding their whereabouts are based on speculations.

Earlier on May 28, the ANP-PPP coalition government in NWFP had announced head-money for the 21 Taliban leaders and commanders from Swat. It included the Swat Taliban head Maulana Fazlullah with a head-money of Rs50 million, an amount equal to that offered by the Pakistan government for Baitullah Mahsudís capture. The offer of reward to informers didnít have any impact, at least until now, as none of the 21 wanted Taliban commanders from Swat has been killed or captured.

Art enthusiasts defy Taliban stage fright

LAHORE: While the Taliban continue to terrorise every section of society, Pakistani artists are striking back with the only weapons they have – drama, music and above all humour. And the public are responding.

The day after the Lahore International Arts Festival was bombed last year, the open-air theatre was packed. Lahoris walked through the debris, some bringing babies and small children, in defiance of the threat. Those who were there said the atmosphere was electric.

It would cost a million dollars to stage the Lahore International Arts Festival this – not much to restore a sense of hope in a city that sometimes feels under siege, says BBC.

The Taliban have carried out attacks in Pakistan recently on five-star hotels – Pearl Continental in Peshawar and the Marriott in Islamabad – but it is Lahore that has faced the most constant attention.

Since the arts festival bombing, targets have included a cafe owned by the Peerzada family who stage the festival, and theatres across the city in coordinated overnight raids.

Salman Shahid, who has a popular TV chat show, says that every time people go out for the evening, there is a danger that was not there a couple of years ago.

“Somewhere at the back of your mind there is a thought that you are taking a bit of a risk,” BBC quotes him as saying.

To go backstage in one of the theatres that was bombed, the author of the BBC report says he climbed a steep and narrow metal staircase, squeezing along stained walls in a side street in Lahore. “On stage, some of Pakistan’s biggest screen stars are playing parts amid the poor lighting and makeshift scenery. Their industry has failed to keep up with Bollywood in recent years,” says the author of his visit to the theatre.

The owner Bilal Ahmed said, “The cinema of Pakistan has been facing a lot of crisis. There was a time when Pakistan and India were going neck to neck. We do not have the state of the art equipment our neighbour does. It is just hopeless in Pakistan.”

The author of the BBC report says windows broken in the bomb attack had still not been repaired at the front of the theatre, but Ahmed was not giving up. “Like everyone I spoke to on this cultural frontline, he saw his theatre work as having a role beyond mere entertainment,” says the author. “Being able to put on vulgar bawdy shows about Punjab family life was in some way standing up for a civilisation in peril from the Taliban.

Although his dancers were clothed from head to foot, their gyrations miming to Bollywood movies have to be passed by the censor, and the police do come and check. It is as if the theatre is on a tightrope, and could fall off any time. TV in contrast does not face censorship, and Pakistan has seen fierce competition in recent years. One of the most successful channels, like many institutions in the country, has taken a far harder line against the Taliban this year than before.

The tolerance for brave Islamic fighters was fine when they were fighting foreign wars in Afghanistan and in Indian-controlled Kashmir. But now that Pakistan faces an internal threat, the real nature of the kind of life the fundamentalists want has brought a new unity against them,” says the author.

Younis Butt has launched a comedy show specifically to respond to the Taliban threat, including a spoof Taliban TV channel, complete with a woman singer who sits in silence with her back to the camera, and time-checks made by bullets striking a bell.

Butt says, “It is the best form of fighting terrorism to expose them, so that normal people will have no sympathy for them. That is only way we can isolate them, then we can fight them.” He says his lampooning of US policy has caused complaints from Americans, too. But he believes that if he is getting strong protests from both the US and the Taliban, he is fulfilling his function as a safety valve for a society that needs to laugh.

The Peerzada family stress Pakistan’s Sufi Islamic traditions as a counter to the Taliban.

Usman Peerzada said, “This is the moment people need the arts, need music to relax. This is the moment that people need to see drama.”

Lahore is full of shrines remembering Sufi saints – a type of religion that the Taliban detest.

Faizan Peerzada has been on a long tour of Sufi areas, collecting stories, music and poetry. And he has promoted a Sufi singer, Sain Zahoor, now internationally famous.

Sain Zahoor sings ancient poetry that tells of past conflicts between the Sufi mainstream and mullahs who wanted a more restrictive vision of Islamic life – a reminder that the Taliban represent an old viewpoint, appearing in a modern guise.

Sadaan Peerzada said, “It is a total war. They are trying to choke and discourage. They are bold. We have to do the same and keep doing it.”

The author concludes, “The decisive battles in its war with the Taliban might not turn out to be in NWFP, but on this cultural frontier of hearts and minds, as a nation struggles with its identity in the world.”

US special envoy urges more EU aid for IDPs: 70% Taliban not with Qaeda

* Holbrooke calls IDPs crisis strategic problem
* Says most Taliban funds come from overseas than illegal drug trade

LAHORE/BRUSSELS: US Special Envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke has said at least seventy percent of Taliban do not share the philosophy of Taliban and Al Qaeda, Dunya News reported on Tuesday.

Holbrooke said less violent Taliban, those who had renounced extremism, should be included in the political mainstream.

Moreover, the US special envoy urged EU nations to boost aid to the IDPs, warning the crisis could undermine the fight against the Taliban.

“In order to succeed in Afghanistan we have to have some degree of stability and control on the Pakistan side of the border,” he said.

He said the Taliban were receiving more funding from their sympathisers abroad than from Afghanistan’s illegal drug trade. “More money is coming from the (Persian) Gulf than from the drug trade (to the Taliban),” Holbrooke said.

He noted that the US was setting up an interdepartmental task force to deal with the problem. It would be led by the Treasury Department and include other relevant agencies such as the FBI, and the Pentagon, he said. daily times monitor/agencies

PM to defend Pakistan ties in parliament

By Bappa Majumdar

NEW DELHI (Reuters) – Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will defend efforts to improve ties with Pakistan in a parliament debate on Wednesday after criticism by opposition groups that he had conceded ground to the neighbour.

Singh signed a joint statement with his Pakistani counterpart Yusuf Raza Gilani during a meeting in Egypt this month agreeing to delink the issue of terrorism from the broader peace process.

Opposition leaders saw the statement as a departure from New Delhi’s stand that a resumption of dialogue could only take place if Pakistan acted against the militants it believed were behind last year’s Mumbai attacks.

Singh appeared at a new conference shortly afterwards, ruling out resumption of talks with Pakistan until the Mumbai attackers were brought to justice. But critics said the damage had been done.

“The prime minister must answer why he agreed to a joint statement that disrupts a national consensus that dialogue cannot resume against Pakistan unless strong measures against militants are taken,” Sushma Swaraj, a senior leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party, told reporters.

Singh also drew flak for agreeing to include in the joint statement a reference to the Pakistani province of Baluchistan, where Pakistan accuses India of fomenting an insurgency. New Delhi denies the charge.

Ahead of the debate in parliament, Singh’s Congress party closed ranks behind him on the approach to Pakistan.

“There is no issue at all. The party is firmly behind the prime minister,” Congress spokesman Janardhan Dwivedi told reporters.

But analysts said many members of Congress party saw his policy on Pakistan as risky in a country where distrust of its nuclear-armed neighbour runs deep and any concession is viewed with suspicion.

“Privately there is enormous pressure from within the party on Manmohan Singh for signing that joint statement, but they will stick together as resuming peace talks with Pakistan is very much on the cards,” said Amulya Ganguli, a political analyst.

India broke off a four-year-long formal peace process after the attacks on Mumbai by Pakistan-based militants who India says must have been helped by Pakistani security agents.

RE-STARTING PEACE PROCESS

Singh is expected to speak at the end of a parliamentary discussion on recent foreign policy issues. The debate could indicate how far the government could go to normalise relations with Pakistan and restart the peace process, analysts say.

“I think he would say that he has taken the step because he wants to normalise relations with Pakistan and it was up to Pakistan now to reciprocate,” Kuldip Nayar, a New Delhi-based political commentator, said.

Islamabad denies state agencies had any role in the Mumbai attacks that killed 175 people and says it will prosecute those accused of involvement in the attacks.

But Pakistan wants India to return to peace talks without conditions such as action against Mumbai attack planners and militant groups India blames for carrying out bombings in Indian cities..

The United States also wants the two sides to return to a dialogue so that Pakistan can concentrate on fighting the Taliban and al Qaida militants on its western borders.

Reflecting its continuing concerns over New Delhi, Pakistan said India’s launch of its first nuclear-powered submarine capable of carrying ballistic missiles was “detrimental to regional peace and stability.”

Pakistan will take steps to safeguard its own security, the foreign ministry said, following Sunday’s launch of the submarine, part of a $2.9 billion Indian plan to build five such submarines.

Afghan suicide attack increases pressure on Pakistan

Christina Lamb

Taliban militants struck at government buildings in the city of Khost in southeastern Afghanistan yesterday with suicide bombs, AK-47 rifles and rocket-propelled grenades, wounding 14 people, including two police officers, and provoking fears of a bloody election campaign.

The Afghan Taliban can escape to sanctuary in Pakistan

At least three suicide bombers blew themselves up during the onslaught, which began in the early afternoon near a US military base. General Mohammad Zahir Azimi, a defence ministry spokesman, said later that Afghan forces had surrounded the attackers.

The raid came as the United States asked Pakistan for help in ensuring a peaceful election campaign. Islamabad has been asked to send troops to key points along its border with Helmand to stop Taliban militia crossing back and forth.

For the past two weeks, 4,500 US marines have been engaged in Operation Khanjar (Strike of the Sword), their largest offensive yet. They have grabbed a swathe of territory in southern Helmand.

Although July has been the deadliest month for foreign troops in the eight-year war, with 66 killed, including 20 British men, military officials say the operation has so far faced less resistance than expected.

But this is because the Taliban faded away and officials are well aware that the militants can be eliminated only if Pakistan stops allowing them sanctuary. Border controls led to surprisingly peaceful polls in 2004 and 2005.

The request to Pakistan was made during a visit to Islamabad last week by General Stanley McChrystal, the commander of US and Nato forces in Afghanistan, and General Karl Eikenberry, the US ambassador to Kabul. It was reinforced by President Barack Obama’s special envoy Richard Holbrooke, who is visiting the region.

Nato commanders and the Afghan government have long complained about the sanctuary the Taliban enjoy in Pakistan where they send their wounded, train and recruit fighters and raise funds. Mullah Mohammed Omar, the one-eyed Taliban leader, and his senior associates operate from Quetta, and journalists often receive calls from Taliban spokesmen in Peshawar.

But Pakistan’s military has recently taken a tough new stance after Taliban forces launched a spate of suicide attacks and took over the Swat valley, a former tourist area 70 miles from the capital. “We suddenly realised we could be left an army without a country,” said one general.

However, with Swat almost cleared after three months of fighting and Pakistani troops moving into the border areas of Waziristan to pursue Baitullah Mehsud, leader of the Pakistani Taliban, there is concern that Islamabad seems to have no interest in taking on militant groups that are using its territory to attack western forces over the border.

A senior US official said: “We still don’t see any evidence that Islamabad has politically or militarily made a decision to go after the Afghan Taliban.

“As far as we’re concerned, they will only turn the corner when they tell the Quettashura [tribal council], ‘You have a choice – go back home and either negotiate or fight, but you’re not welcome here’.”

McChrystal said last week: “What I would love is for the government of Pakistan to have the ability to eliminate the safe havens that the Afghan Taliban enjoy.”

Briefings by senior Pakistani military indicate that they still divide Taliban into good and bad. “They cause no trouble to us,” replied one general when asked about Mullah Omar and Jalaluddin Haqqani, the Waziristan warlord closest to Al-Qaeda.

“What we have to consider is what happens when the foreign troops leave Afghanistan,” said another. “If the Taliban then take over, we don’t want to be on the wrong side.”

Pakistan has objected that American operations in southern Afghanistan are forcing more militants over its side of the border.

“There is a need for better coordination at the military level,” said Shah Mehmud Qureshi, Pakistan’s foreign minister. “Pushing the buck over won’t solve the problem as with such a porous border the buck will just go back again.”

In an interview with The Sunday Times in Islamabad, Qureshi insisted that his country would no longer give sanctuary to Mullah Omar and the Afghan Taliban.

“We are clear we have to deal with all elements that are challenging the writ of the government and making Pakistan or other places insecure,” he said. “We don’t want our soil, our national territory, to be used against anyone.”

“We’re no more differentiating between good terrorists and bad terrorists. They’ve created havoc, made our environment insecure, and wherever they are, we’ll take them on.”

Asked specifically if this would include Mullah Omar and his Quetta shura, which runs the Afghan Taliban, the minister replied: “Absolutely, we’ll be taking them on.”

Indian Opp seeks president’s intervention on joint statement

By Iftikhar Gilani

NEW DELHI: A delegation of India’s main opposition, the National Democratic Alliance, met Indian President Pratibha Patil on Tuesday and submitted a memorandum on the recent India-Pakistan joint statement.

Prime ministers Manmohan Singh and Yousuf Raza Gilani signed the joint statement during a meeting in Egypt this month, agreeing to de-link the issue of terrorism from the broader peace process.

“The government has just been formed and after the first foreign tour of the PM facts about the Indo-Pak joint statement have gradually come to light which have raised doubts among people of this country,” opposition leader Lal Krishna Advani told reporters after meeting the president.

Opposition leaders saw the statement as a departure from New Delhi’s stand that a resumption of dialogue could only take place if Pakistan acted against the militants India believed were behind last year’s Mumbai attacks.

“Suddenly, the country saw that the joint statement highlighted that India has agreed that whether Pakistan takes any necessary action against terrorism or not, the talks between them would continue,” he said.

The memorandum accused Singh and Indian negotiators of a “blatant and huge blunder” in spotlighting Balochistan by allowing the insertion of Gilani’s “unilateral” remark on “threats in Balochistan” in the statement.

“To-date, Balochistan had never been mentioned in any talks. This is the first time it has been mentioned, and mentioned in such a way as if we are responsible for it and now we are saying that we will not let that happen again,” Advani added.

Singh will defend efforts to improve ties with Pakistan in a parliament debate on Wednesday (today).

Indian reality TV’s tryst with truth draws protests

by Elizabeth Roche

NEW DELHI – The Indian version of a US reality TV show that extracts secrets from minor celebrities has caused protests and a furore in parliament with its focus on infidelity, incest and other taboo subjects.

MPs from various parties queued up this week to denounce “Sach Ka Saamna” or “Facing the Truth” as indecent and an assault on Indian culture.

On Wednesday, the government issued the Star TV company that broadcasts the programme with a show cause notice, asking it to explain why the show should not be banned.

Petitions demanding a stay on broadcasts of the show have been filed with the New Delhi High Court and there have been organised protests outside Star’s main offices.

The channel insists the programme – a version of the US show “Moment of Truth” – helps expose social hypocrisy, while cultural commentators have voiced concerns that the government is overstepping on a free speech issue.

Star India Pvt Ltd. is a member of the regional Star TV stable owned by Australian media mogul Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp.

“Facing the Truth” features Indian celebrities who are asked a series of personal questions which they answer in front of a live audience, as well as family and friends.

If they answer truthfully – determined with the help of a polygraph test – they win 10 million rupees (S$299,790).

As in the US format, contestants are free to quit at any point during the show if they feel uncomfortable. The questions range from the mildly transgressive: “Have you ever stolen bed linen from hotels you have stayed in?” to the deeply personal: “Have you ever asked a woman to abort your child?”

Such questions are “obscene,” according to regional Samajwadi Party MP Kamal Akhtar, who was particularly shocked by one woman being asked, in her husband’s presence, whether she was ever tempted to cheat on him.

“The show is against Indian culture,” Akhtar said in parliament. Hindu nationalist lawmaker S.S. Ahluwalia said the show’s backers were “trying to destroy civilised society.”

Star has until July 27 to respond to the show cause notice, which notes charges that “Sach Ka Saamna” includes content “offending good taste and decency”.

The television company insists the accusations are unfounded.

“The show is about having strength of character to face the truth and turn over a new leaf. It is a show that promotes truth and honesty,” a Star spokeswoman told AFP.

Rejecting the charge of indecency, she argued that viewers “have the remote at their finger tips,” and can change channels if they feel offended.

Siddarth Basu, head of the production company Big Synergy which puts the show together said it was about “lifting the veil off hypocrisy”.

“The contestants know all the questions because the final 21 are chosen from the 50 they face during the polygraph test. What they don’t know is the result of the polygraph test which is revealed during the show,” he told CNN-IBN news channel in an interview.

“Many of them want to tell the truth.” Media critics have focused less on the show’s content and more on the government’s intervention, which some see as nanny-state censorship.

Mannika Chopra, columnist with the Tribune and Hindustan Times papers, said it was “not up to parliamentarians” to decide what people should watch on TV, no matter how offended they might be.

Indian Express columnist Shubhra Gupta was similarly insistent that viewers should be the final arbiters of what constitutes good taste – and good television.

“Unless it appeals to the audiences the show will not run,” Gupta said.

“The line of questioning may be questionable but I don’t have the right to force my opinion down anyone’s throat,” she said, adding that “Sach Ka Saamna” had “raised the bar” on what is permissible.

“In that sense it is a landmark for Indian TV.”