Writer, politics, Greg, research, social activist

Hi, I'm Greg!

Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/greg_mathews

Tacstrat Analysis: The Haqqani question
Writer, politics, Greg, research, social activist

Tacstrat Analysis

Many analysts have taken up various positions on the subject of the United States, Pakistan and the controversial Haqqani Network. Tough calls have demanded that Pakistan be declared a rogue state, all aid suspended to the country and sanctions imposed. Others digress and say sanctions on Pakistan did not really work. Not only did Pakistan successfully test its nuclear capabilities, the economic toll of the sanctions nearly led to the breaking up of the small state. Unemployment rose exponentially, political tensions led to the overthrow of a democratic government and resulted in a military leadership that ruled over the country for another 9 years. Setting aside the age-old debate on whether sanctions really do work, one must accept the fact that sanctions, in Pakistan's case, are not a pragmatic option.

As recently as March 1, the United States government has flexed its muscle over the Iran-Pakistan pipeline deal and implied, with strong undertones, that Pakistan should avoid any activity that would invite sanctions. Realistically speaking, the United States in unlikely to impose any such sanctions, over Iran OR the Haqqani Network.


Propaganda: the (blatant) Indian way
Writer, politics, Greg, research, social activist


Indian media can be called many things - free, vibrant, opinionated - but if there is one thing it cannot be called is subtle. The Indian media has had a long history of bias, Pakistan-bashing and a general lack of uniformity on national issues.

When the gang rape story broke in December, there was an intense media debate in India about the consequences of the tragedy on the country. The Indian Express advocated reform and called for a safe environment in the country on its Op-Ed pages. The Hindu, on the other hand, took off on a different tangent and discussed the need for death penalty and castration for rapists. The Times of India chose to remain on the fences, calling for "long term solutions." The Asian Age focused on the political fall-out of the gang rape. Navbharat Times, on the other hand, filled its Op-Ed pages with a debate on the oppressed classes of the Indian society and raised an entirely existential question. Nai Dunya, went off in a completely different direction, and called for an end to protests since laws could not be "made over night."

However, this is tame compared to some of the attacks the Indian media has made on its national athletes. And that onslaught is nothing compared to the continuous Pakistan-bashing that occurs every time wind blows from the west. Over the years, the Pakistani establishment has consistently demanded that the Indian media tone down its anti-Pakistan stance for better Indo-Pak relations. Several times over the years, former president General (r) Pervez Musharraf has blasted the Indian media for fabricating stories about Pakistan's military. Furthermore, Pakistan High Commissioner to India Salman Bashir said in an interview, "Pakistan-bashing has become fashionable in India whenever there is an issue." Pakistan's Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar also said several times that she was saddened by the constant barrage of negative comments emanating from the other side of the border.

"Pakistan and India are both important countries of South Asia. It is imperative that they demonstrate requisite responsibility for ensuring peace by addressing all concerns through dialogue. Rhetoric and ratcheting up of tensions is certainly counterproductive. We are saddened and disappointed at the continued negative statements emanating from India both from the media as well as certain Indian leaders. For its part, Pakistan has observed a measured and deliberate self-restraint in our public statements on India. This has been done keeping in view the interest of peace in the region," said Khar.

The LoC, Pakistan-India cricketing rivalries, political and security debates aside, the latest stunt pulled by the Indian media was worthy of a good laugh.

In the wake of the Hyderabad blasts in India that left 16 dead and 117 injured, the Indian security forces issued a statement that slain Pakistani MQM leader Manzar Imam was the mastermind behind the attack. Within a few hours of this statement, the Indian media men dug out a photograph of Manzar Imam and declared him the chief terrorist behind the incident. Except the fact that Imam had been killed in a targeted attack a few weeks ago. It took them another few hours to realize their mistake and retract their statements.

This incident, again, just goes to prove how the Indian media looks for any outside sources to blame without looking inwards for their own security woes.

The Indian Home Minister Shinde announced in a statement that they had been expecting some form of retaliation after two high-profile hangings - Afzal Guru and Ajmal Kasab. If it was expected, perhaps the Indian journalists should focus their energies at investigating how there was such a massive security failure in one of their busiest, most populous cities instead of pointing fingers on dead men across the border.

In every journalism course there is a section on media ethics and responsibility. It seems that either the Indian journalists missed those important classes or need to revisit them once more.

Area 14/8: Who will provide affirmative action in India?
Writer, politics, Greg, research, social activist

Area 14/8

Consumed with weapon purchases, maritime capabilities and external threats from China and Pakistan, India has it seems neglected to peek at the state of affairs within its own boundaries. In the past few months, multiple incidents infringing the right of freedom of speech have occurred which has prompted writer Salman Rushdie to smear India with his "cultural emergency" allegation.

Although Rushdie's credibility is uncertain and his agenda equally debatable, his accusation rings of the truth. India's cultural intellect, its writers, poets, film makers and artists are being censured if their opinion and expression does not conform to the mainstream perceptions of India. Recently, a Tamil film called Vishwaroopam was condemned by Muslim religious groups in Tamil Nadu since it projected Muslims in a negative light. The government decided to ban the release of the film claiming that they lacked sufficient police forces to monitor all cinema houses for riots. Vishwaroopam's producer, Kamal Haasan was so disillusioned that he threatened to leave India for a secular state abroad. Eventually, he agreed to cut some scenes from the film.

Elsewhere, renowned sociologist, Ashis Nandy, was attacked for insulting unprivileged classes by drawing links between corruption and "other backward classes, scheduled casters and scheduled tribes" at the Jaipur Literary Festival. A case was registered against him by Rajpal Meena, Chairperson of the SC/ST Rajasthan Manch, and subsequently, he was charged with the Prevention of Atrocities Act.

The controversial Salman Rushdie also made headlines when he accused the West Bengal government of deliberately hatching a plan to prevent his participation in Kolkata Literary Meet for the promotion of his new novel, "Midnight's Children". Even last year, protests and death threats had compelled him to cancel his visit to the Jaipur Literature Festival.

There are many other instances where unconventional news or statements have been targeted. India ranked a shocking 140th out of 179 countries on the Press Freedom index, issued by Reporters Without Borders. Reporter Soorinje would attest to this fact. He was arrested for multiples offences including criminal conspiracy, rioting with deadly weapons and using criminal force on a woman with the intention of outraging her modesty. Soorinje's report on an attack on a birthday celebration involving Muslims at a homestay in Mangalore had held right wing extremists Hindu Jagarana Vedike responsible. Similarly, two women were arrested in last November when they Facebook comments offended followers of Bal Thackeray.

India should not be singled out for rising social discontent over freedom of speech. There are many such cases present in modernized societies too. The real issue concerning India is why the government chooses to be a part of this oppression? This is the government which likes to highlight itself as a democratic pluralistic nation where people of different religions, ethnicities, races and social statuses reside in harmony.

The government uses the maintenance of law and order as a justification for its extreme measures. But is law and order code for protecting parties' mandate? In West Bengal similar to Tamil Nadu, people believed extreme steps were taken by the government to prevent any ill-will with Muslim voters. Are these infringements on the freedom of speech a political game only? Politicians may indeed be using cultural intellectuals as easy targets to keep the public distracted from pressing issues like poverty and unemployment.

It may not be just that the government is afraid of extremists; it may even share the same sentiments. Many state officials include hardliners like members of the Bharatiya Janata Party( BJP) sparking suspicions about state-sponsored terrorism. India's Home Minister admitted to the involvement of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and BJP in promoting terrorism within the country and placing the blame on minority communities. Just recently, BJP was very vocal in banning Pakistani writers from attending a literary festival in India.

Freedom of speech is guaranteed in the Indian Constitution under Article 19. However, this freedom is subject to certain limitations such as "public order", "decency or morality" and "security of the State". The Supreme Court seems to be maintaining a low profile in controlling the government's outbursts of actions. In Nandy's case,for example, it stayed the arrest but also supported the state's response saying that an "idea" is capable of inflicting harm.

Indian has failed to implement affirmative action. Since the government is not longer impartial, it is now up to the masses to reclaim their right to the freedom of speech.

Tacstrat Analysis: Procrastination over the Pipeline
Writer, politics, Greg, research, social activist

1_tacstrat logo

Conceived by a Pakistani civil engineer in the 1950s, and brought on the table between the concerned parties in 1995, the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline project has remained on the forefront, and brushed aside with an unbecoming ease. The pipeline that aims to connect Iran's biggest gas field in South Pars with neighboring Pakistan and India has become a matter of global interest. Pakistan's energy crisis and Iran's economic boycott, owing to the Khomeini regime's adamancy with respect to their nuclear program, make the pipeline a win-win bargain for the two. Yet, with Pakistan's instability, and an inability to pick a side, the pipeline, as we enter 2013, remains a far fetched thought. Despite recent positive angle, and signing of contracts on 4 February 2012 between the two governments, we realize this is not the first time Pakistan has come so close and withdrawn.

Summer 2012 took the energy crisis to new heights altogether. With load-shedding in many of Punjab's housing colonies at a shocking 20 hours a day, the gap between supply and demand had reached a shocking 40%. The battlefield over Punjab's assailing energy shortage became the perfect ground to exploit political grievances. At steak mostly remains Punjab's once flourishing industrial sector. With 'thermal power' as the only reliable alternative, the high cost of this substitute has shut down various plants. Those still functioning, owing to the expenses of productions fail to compete in the market where growing economies like Bangladesh are standing on the same platform. Moreover, private power houses have either slashed down production, or shut down completely because of the government's failure to pay them.

While Pakistan gets embroiled in a circular debt, that stood at a tall $880 million last summer, as the government pays only when the power generation houses are on the verge of suing, structural problems fail to be addressed, and the sloppy mammoth continues to move at its own painfully slow pace. Pakistani academics, politicians and technocrats, with the help of allies have looked into various regional and local solutions. A heated debate was over the Kalabagh dam. Theoretically the dam could have also prevented half of Punjab and Sindh from flooding, and millions worth of damage (not to mention the lives), but as a solution to our energy crisis, the local and federal cannot agree on a solution. Secondly, the United States, that wants to isolate Iran, and simultaneously make the Afghan and Central Asian bloc economically superior, expects Pakistan to conform.

A third option, newly tapped, is cashing on the hot, sunny sweltering heat of the plains, more specifically the sunlight. November 2012 the Punjab government signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the German government. The best part about solar panels is it's a onetime investment and runs for free on sunlight on its own. With the PML-N working on these alternatives, it is understood by the federal government that the power shortage entails Pakistan cannot be selective, but must look into multiple sources. The solar project, if executed effectively alone can tap part of the than 2.4 million megawatts of light energy going to waste. Renewable sources a safe and environment friendly solution.

Looking into innovative ways to resolve the energy deficit, which is taking a grave toll on Pakistan's industry and standard of life, however is not sufficient. At this point Pakistan, like in most critical political points, is again torn between two opposing ends. Our alliance with the United States, India's silent conformity, Pakistan remains in a tough loop. The United States wants to isolate Iran: straight, blunt, and no flowery diplomacy to coat that bitter pill. Iran has failed to play the game by the standards of the 'peace decorum' and since the IAEA remains dissatisfied with their nuclear aspirations, the only option is to boycott Iran, impose economic sanctions. The sanctions have been showing their impact and unless the Khomeini government builds alliances in the region, to successfully bypass the international 'payment' transactions, there is little hope for them economically.

Pakistan hence becomes a key player, and one that has to make a quick decision. Only two weeks back Hilary Clinton made it clear that joining hands with Iran will only force the United States to blacklist Pakistan as well. And of course, given the fragile state of our economy who wants to be in the bad books of international coercion squad? A vicious cycle once again. The pros versus cons of going ahead with the pipeline project have been contemplated for years now. There is no solution. India had the luxury of backing out. Firstly, after economic steak (to begin with the capital to invest), India's economic well being to a great degree is dependent of the success of the TAPI pipeline (Tajikistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India). The United States also signed a nuclear contract, a polite way of returning the favor. In Pakistan's case, the promise of TAPI in the long run, with any compensation remains an unattractive bargain. Also, a general rough patch with the United States since the war on terror has made Pakistan suspicious of the US' word. It would be accurate to say the United States has been a fair weathered friend.

Regional stability and keeping our options open on the diplomatic grid seem to be smarter options. The United State's threats have made Pakistan cautious. Two years ago the pipeline, in the imagination of Tehran and Islamabad stood exactly where it stands today. By 2014, we had projected the project to be complete and pumping. And yet as Islamabad chooses to procrastinate, the energy, economic and law and order situations worsen. Tehran shook hands with Islamabad this Monday, 4 February 2013. For the domestic government to actually go forward with this decision would be a bold move, sound to have consequences. Could Balochistan's security worsen, or perhaps another shootout at the Afghan-Pakistan border, we can only find out. But taking a firm stand today is a far better move than waiting for a miracle from the land of broken promises.

Tags: ,

“Myth of Mohandas K. Gandhi”
Writer, politics, Greg, research, social activist

By Velu Annamalai,Ph.D.
Area 14/8

Dr. Martin Luther King,Jr. might have heard the word of non-violence from Gandhi,but it is certain that Dr. King did not know the true colors of Mr. Gandhi. From the beginning to the end,M.K. Gandhi was loyal to imperialism. The Western news media and their Indian allies by a massive propaganda exercise created the illusion of sainthood around Gandhi and made people believe that he fought Apartheid in South Africa,and in the process of doing so developed a new method of non-violent struggle called satyagraha. Nothing is farther from the truth.

Gandhi,for the major part of his life,worshipped British imperialism and too often proudly proclaimed himself a lover of the Empire. He was Kipling's Gunga Din in flesh and blood.

To understand Gandhi's politics in South Africa,it is essential to note the three fundamental trends which all along persisted underneath all his activities. They were:(1) his loyalty to the British Empire,(2) his apathy with regard to the Indian "lower castes",India's indigenous population,and (3) his virulent anti-African racism.

Gandhi was once thrown out of a train compartment which was reserved exclusively for the Whites. It was not that Gandhi was fighting on behalf of the local Africans that he broke the rule in getting into a Whites'compartment. No! that was not the reason. Gandhi was so furious that he and his merchant caste Indians (Banias) were treated on par with the local Africans. This is the real reason for his fighting race discrimination in South Africa,and he had absolutely no concern about the pitiable way the Africans were treated by the Whites.

On June 2,1906 he commented in the Indian Opinion that "Thanks to the Court's decision,only clean Indians (meaning upper caste Hindu Indians) or colored people other than Kaffirs,can now travel in the trains."

During the `Kaffir Wars'in South Africa he was a regular Gunga Din,who volunteered to organize a brigade of Indians to put down the Zulu uprising and was decorated himself for valor under fire.

Gandhi said on September 26,1896 about the African people:"Ours is one continued struggle sought to be inflicted upon us by the Europeans,who desire to degrade us to the level of the raw Kaffir,whose occupation is hunting and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife,and then pass his life in indolence and nakedness."

Again in an editorial on the Natal Municipal Corporation Bill,in the Indian Opinion of March 18,1905,Gandhi wrote:"Clause 200 makes provision for registration of persons belonging to uncivilized races (meaning the local Africans),resident and employed within the Borough. One can understand the necessity of registration of Kaffirs who will not work,but why should registration be required for indentured Indians…?"

Again on September 9,1905,Gandhi wrote about the local Africans as:"in the majority of cases it compels the native to work for at least a few days a year"(meaning that the locals are lazy).

Nothing could be farther from the truth that Gandhi fought against Apartheid,which many propagandists in later years wanted people to believe. He was all in favor of continuation of White domination and the oppression of Africans in South Africa.

In the Indian Opinion of March 25,1905,Gandhi wrote on a Bill regulating fire-arms:"In the instance of fire-arms,the Asiatic has been most improperly bracketed with the natives.

The British Indian does not need any such restrictions as are imposed by the Bill on the natives regarding the carrying of fire-arms. The prominent race can remain so by preventing the native from arming himself. Is there the slightest vestige of justification for so preventing the British Indians?"

Gandhi always advised Indians not to align with other political groups in either colored or African communities. He was strongly opposed to the commingling of races. In the Indian Opinion of September 4,1904,Gandhi wrote:"Under my suggestion,the Town Council (of Johannesburg) must withdraw the Kaffirs from the Location. About this mixing of the Kaffirs with the Indians I must confess I feel most strongly. It think it is very unfair to the Indian population,and it is an undue tax on even the proverbial patience of my countrymen."

In the Indian Opinion of September 24,1903,Gandhi said:"We believe as much in the purity of races as we think they (the Whites) do…by advocating the purity of all races."

Again on December 24,1903,in the Indian Opinion Gandhi stated that:"so far as British Indians are concerned,such a thing is particularly unknown. If there is one thing which the Indian cherishes more than any other,it is purity of type."

When he was fighting on behalf of Indians,he was not fighting for all the Indians,but only for his rich merchant class upper caste Hindus!

In the Anglo-Boer War of 1899,Gandhi,in spite of his own belief that truth was on the side of the Boers,formed an ambulance unit in support of the British forces. He was very earnest about taking up arms and laying down his life for his beloved Queen. He led his men on to the battlefield and received a War Medal.

Gandhi joined in the orgy of Zulu slaughter when the Bambata Rebellion broke out. One needs to read the entire history of Bambata Rebellion to place Gandhi's nazi war crimes in its proper perspective.


Ambedkar,B.R. What Congress and Gandhi Have Done to the Untouchables. Bombay:Thacker,1945.
Annamalai,Velu. Sergeant-Major M.K. Gandhi. Bangalore:Dalit Sahitya Akadiy,1995.
Assisi,Francis. "Gandhi's Links with South Africa Examined."India West,28 Sep 1990:45.
Assisi,Francis. "Mahatma Gandhi's Links with SA Blacks Questioned."News India,28 Sep 1990:1.
Assisi,Francis. "Two New Books on Gandhiji."India West,28 Sep 1990:45.
Das,Nani Gopal. Was Gandhiji a Mahatma? Calcutta:Dipali Book House,1988.
Edwards,Michael. The Myth of the Mahatma. London:Constable,1986.
Gandhi,Mohandas K. Untouchability. Edited by Bharatan Kumarappa. Ahmedabad:Navajivan Publishing House,1954.
Grenier,Richard. The Gandhi Nobody Knows. Nashville:Thomas Nelson,1983.
Grenier,Richard. "The Gandhi Nobody Knows."Commentary (Mar 1983):59-72.
Huq,Fazlul. Gandhi:Saint or Sinner? Foreword by V.T. Rajshekar. Bangalore:Dalit Sahitya Akadiy,1991.
Kapur,Sudarshan. Raising Up a Prophet:The African-American Encounter with Gandhi. Boston:Beacon Press,1992.
Rajshekar,V.T. Hinduism,Fascism and Gandhism:A Guide to Every Intelligent Indian. Bangalore:Dalit Sahitya Akadiy,1984.
Rajshekar,V.T. Why Godse Killed Gandhi? Bangalore:Dalit Sahitya Akadiy,1986.
Rajshekar,V.T. Clash of Two Values:Mahatma Gandhi and Babasaheb Ambedkar (The Verdict of History). Bangalore:Dalit Sahitya Akadiy,1989.

Velu Annamalai,Ph.D.,a native of Tamil Nadu,India,is the President of the International Dalit Support Group and the author of Sergeant-Major M.K. Gandhi published by the Dalit Sahitya Akademy in Bangalore,India in 1995. He currently resides in New Orleans,Louisiana.

Rev. Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi
Writer, politics, Greg, research, social activist


Dear Oprah,

I am writing this letter because I think of you as an enlightened person. This letter is about the statements you made during the show you dedicated to the memory of Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King. During that show, you compared Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King with Mahatma Gandhi.

In one of your statement you said something like "I wouldn't be here if it wasn't for Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King's sacrifice." Oprah, what about those countless unknown and unsung heroes, who preceded Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King. They too suffered hardships and sacrificed their lives for freedom and justice for the black people. As a matter of fact, black people revolted against slavery and started struggling for freedom the moment they were captured in Africa and the chains of slavery were put around their necks. Since that moment black people have expressed their suffering, sorrow, helplessness and burning desire for freedom and justice through their songs. That is the reason why black people have contributed so much for the creation and development of new music.

The mentality or thinking, which was responsible for slavery, made it sure that the history of slavery and their struggle for freedom and justice is not known to the world. And if this story has to be told, then it must be told the way that "mentality" wants it to be told. There are people even today who think that slavery was benign and slaves were happy and contented with their situation. These people also justify colonial rule by saying, "It was necessary to civilize the uncivilized." On the contrary, it is our conviction that a civilized man doesn't deny another man's humanity. He doesn't enslave another man or subjugates another man in any form or manner- politically, economically, socially and religiously.

Deliberate efforts have been made to blot out the history of slavery and black peoples' struggle for freedom and their contribution to human society in all walks of life. For instance, you go to any major city in the USA, you find all sorts of museums, but you don't find the one about slavery. The US Congress was very enthusiastic about Jewish holocaust museum in Washington D. C. However, the same Congress has been unwilling so far to establish a museum about slavery. Moreover, what about a holocaust museum of native Americans, the Indians? Whereas Jewish holocaust took place in Europe, the slavery of blacks and the genocide of the native people took place in the USA. I leave it for you to draw your own conclusion. However, I believe that it takes moral courage to look into the eyes of evil and not just empty moral rhetoric.

The emergence of independent Africa had a major positive impact on the "black civil rights movement" in the United States and the anti apartheid movement in South Africa. It boosted the morale of these movements and brought worldwide recognition to Dr. Martin Luther King and Mr. Nelson Mandela. That's why, who knows how many "great men" were lynched in the United States and how many were tortured to death in solitary cells in South Africa before Dr. Martin Luther King and Mr. Nelson Mandela, respectively.

During that show, you compared Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King with Mahatma Gandhi. I think your information about Mahatma Gandhi is probably based on the writings of European and Hindu "myth makers" (historians). Had you known the truth about Mahatma Gandhi, you wouldn't have said that Dr. Martin Luther King was following the policy of the great Mahatma Gandhi.

I think it is disgraceful to compare Dr. Martin Luther King with Mahatma Gandhi. For example, whereas Dr. King represented the aspirations of all black people, Mahatma Gandhi represented the interest of only high caste Hindus who constituted 10-12% of the Indian population. Whereas Dr. King appealed to all Americans to rise above their prejudices of race, religion and gender to form a just society, Mahatma Gandhi was the mastermind behind the partition of India into two nations, one Hindu and the other Muslim. Here are some facts about Mahatma Gandhi.

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was born in the state of Gujrat in Baniya caste whose occupation is business. After obtaining a law degree from England he returned to India. However, after a short stay he decided to move to South Africa where he thought he could make more money. A large number of Indians from Gujrat State were brought to South Africa as indentured servants. Being a caste conscious Hindu, he looked down upon the natives. He used to say:

I can see why a white man discriminates against an African, but why against us. We Indians have the same values, the white man has.

Besides his law practice he worked for the British army recruiting Indians during the Boer War and the Zulu rebellion. He was the commander of an ambulance corps made up of Indians.

The Bolshevik revolution of 1914 in Russia inspired worldwide nationalist movements against colonialism and dictatorships. To sabotage Indian national movement, the British colonists brought Gandhi to India. What the "myth makers" don't tell is that the Indian National Congress Party, which was later controlled by Gandhi was set up under the patronage of the British Government and it was dominated by high caste Hindus, who constituted only 10-12% of the Indian population. Anybody who was considered a threat to the interest of the British or high caste Hindus was thrown out of the party. The high caste Hindus, who had control over the Indian economy, also wanted to usurp political power after the departure of the British. But there was one formidable obstacle in their path to achieve this objective. And that obstacle was the Muslim majority states of Punjab, Bengal, Sindh, Blouchistan and Northwest Frontier.

To exclude these Muslim dominant states from the Indian union, the Hindu leaders of Congress Party headed by Gandhi started making provocative statements to instill doubt and fear in the minds of Muslim population that their future in independent India under the control of Hindu majority was not safe. Muslim leaders started asking for constitutional guarantees to safeguard their future, which the Hindu leaders were not willing to provide.

Frustrated, Muslim leaders asked for partition of the country to create a Muslim state. They did not see the trap that "high caste Hindus" had laid for them. They fell into that trap without realizing the impact their demand would have on the future generations of people of the Indian subcontinent. The stage was set for the partition of India into Muslim Pakistan and Hindu India. Gandhi and his associates congratulated each other for accomplishing their objective while holding Muslims responsible for the partition of the country. This is the legacy of Mahatma Gandhi for which future generations of Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis would pay dearly, God knows for how long!

The cruel and deceitful nature of Gandhi was revealed when he counseled Hindu and Sikh refugees, who came to see him in April 1947, after they were driven out of their homes following a terrible massacre of Hindus and Sikhs in the Ravalpindi area of Punjab. Gandhi asked them to go back to their homes, as he exhorted them that he wouldn't accept the partition of the country. He kept repeating like a parrot, "I won't allow the partition of the country. The country would be partitioned only over my dead body." You can imagine the level of his depravity, because his Congress Party had already accepted with his blessing the partition of the country as a condition for Independence. And a few months later on August 15, 1947 the Indian union was divided in two nations, one Muslim and the other Hindu.

The claim that Gandhi won freedom for India peacefully without shedding a drop of blood is the biggest fabricated lie of the 20th century.

Up to the start of World War II, the British government categorically rejected the demand for the independence of India in the immediate future. However, the situation changed dramatically after the war. The war was so devastating to the British power that their government found it impossible to build the infra structure and economy of the homeland while coping with the growing national liberation movements in the colonies. The British government wisely decided to grant freedom to its colonies.

It wasn't Gandhi's movement which drove the British out of India, it was the impact of second world war, which made it impossible for the British to hold on to their Empire. Shortly after the independence of India, other colonies in Asia, Africa and Caribbean gained their independence peacefully. So what is so unique about India's independence? Had there been no World War II, India would still be a British colony!

The other story that the "myth makers" do not tell is that the Independence of India was marked by one of the greatest upheavals of the 20th century. Two Indian states, Punjab and Bengal, were partitioned at the time of independence causing untold suffering and loss of life and property. In Punjab almost all the Hindu and Sikh population of about five millions were forced to leave their homes and properties on the Pakistan side where their ancestors had lived for hundreds of years. Similarly, about five million Muslims were forced to vacate their home and properties on the Indian side.

In the ensuing communal frenzy and carnage, may be as many as one million people perished and thousands of women were kidnapped and raped. About one third of the population of Punjab was engulfed in the inferno created by the independence of India. Of the total population of about five and half million Sikhs, about 40% were rendered homeless due to Independence. The population of Bengal was much higher than that of Punjab and you can imagine the human suffering there! The claim that Gandhi won freedom for India peacefully is a cruel joke on Punjabis and Bengalis.

To my knowledge only in two places, the United States of America and Ireland, the force of arms drove out the British colonists. Everywhere else the British freed the colonies peacefully. On what ground it is claimed that Gandhi won freedom for India peacefully without shedding a drop of blood.

The claim that Gandhi worked for the uplift of Dalits (untouchables) is also a myth.

Gandhi was a Hindu revivalist, who upheld every aspect of Hinduism including the caste system, which is the essence of Hinduism. His writings, speeches and statements confirm this.

I don't believe the caste system to be an odious and vicious dogma. It has its limitations and defects, but there is nothing sinful about it. Harijan, 1933.

I believe in Varnashrama (caste system) which is the law of life. The law of Varna (color and / or caste) is nothing but the law of conservation of energy. Why should my son not be scavenger if I am one? Harijan, 3-6-1947.

He (Shudra, low caste) may not be called a Brahmin (uppermost caste), though he (Shudra) may have all the qualities of a Brahmin in this birth. And it is a good thing for him (Shudra) not to arrogate a Varna (caste) to which he is not born. It is a sign of true humility. Young India, 11-24-1927.

According to Hindu belief, he who practices a profession which does not belong to him by birth, does violence to himself and becomes a degraded being by not living up to the Varna (caste) of his birth. Young India, 11-14-1927.

As years go by, the conviction is daily growing upon me that Varna (caste) is the law of man's being, and therefore, caste is necessary for Christians and Muslims as it has been necessary for Hinduism, and has been its saving grace. Speech at Trivandrum, (Collection of Speeches), Ramanath Suman (1932).

I would resist with my life the separation of "Untouchables" from the caste Hindus. The problem of the "Untouchable" community was of comparatively little importance. London Round Table Conference 1931.

I call myself a Snatana man, one who firmly believes in the caste system. Dharma Manthan, p 4.

I believe in caste division determined by birth and the very root of caste division lies in birth. Varna Vyavastha, p 76-77.

The four castes and the four stages of life are things to be attained by birth alone. Dharma Manthan, p 5.

Caste means the predetermination of a man's profession. Caste implies that a man must practice only the profession of his ancestors for his livelihood. Varna Vyavstha, p 28, 56, 68.

Shudra only serves the higher castes as a matter of religious duty and who will never own any property. The gods will shower down flowers on him. Varna Vyavastha, p 15.

I have noticed that the very basis of our thought have been severely shaken by Western civilization which is the creation of the Satan. Dharma Manthan, p 65.

How is it possible that the Antyaja (outcastes) should have the right to enter all the existing temples? As long as the law of caste and karma has the chief place in the Hindu religion, to say that every Hindu can enter every temple is a thing that is not possible today. Gandhi Sikshan, Vol. 11, p 132.

The caste system can't be said to be bad because it does not allow inter-dining and inter-marriages in different castes. Gandhi by Shiru, p129.

If the Shudar (low caste) leave their ancestral profession and take up others, ambition will rouse in them and their peace of mind will be spoiled. Even their family peace will be disturbed. Hind Swaraj.

The superiority of caste and race is deeply imbedded in the psyche of upper caste Hindus irrespective of their upbringing or the level of education or the place where they live. For example, in the words of a socialist leader, Madhu Limaye, "Nehru practiced both racism and casteism, despite his modern upbringing and outlook" (Telegraph, Calcutta, November 21, 1987).

In a revealing passage about his "making", Nehru wrote, "Behind me lie somewhere in the sub-conscience, racial memories of hundred or whatever the numbers may be, generations of Brahmins. I cannot get rid of that past inheritance" (Jawaharlal Nehru, An Autobiography, (1936), Delhi, 1980, p 596.).

Sir V. S. Naipaul is a Nobel laureate in literature. His Brahmin ancestors were brought as indentured servants to Trinidad long time ago. He grew up in Trinidad and has spent most of his life in England. In his earlier work An Area of Darkness, 1964 he was unforgiving of India. Later the "Brahmin" in him stirred up and came out spewing hatred and venom. He condoned the massacre of thousands of Sikhs in June 1984, when Indira Gandhi ordered a military attack on the Golden Temple complex on the day when thousands of Sikh pilgrims had gathered there to celebrate the martyrdom of Guru Arjan Dev (A Million Mutinies Now, 1990). In 1992 he justified the destruction of a 400 hundred-year-old mosque (Babri Masjid) by Hindu mobs lead by Bhartiya Janta Party (a fascist Hindu party) because of the mistreatment of Hindus by Muslim rulers centuries back in the past. He has become the darling of Hindu fascist organizations.

Mahatma Gandhi, whose Baniya (Vaisha) caste is two steps lower than the uppermost Brahmin caste, was a vigorous defender of the caste system.

"The caste system, in my opinion, has a scientific basis. Reason does not revolt against it. It has disadvantages. ………Caste creates a social and moral restraint……I can find no reason for their (castes) abolition. To abolish caste is to demolish Hinduism. There is nothing to fight against the Varnasharma (caste system). I don't believe the caste system to be an odious and vicious dogma. It has its limitations and defects, but there is nothing sinful about it" (Harijan, 1933).

Gandhi's calling "Untouchables", as Harijans is a cruel joke on the Untouchables by an insensitive and depraved man.

Harijan literally means "child of God". However, in India this label is used for the illegitimate children of temple girls (anchoress) fathered by priests. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, the leader of the Untouchables, vehemently opposed Gandhi's use of Harijans for the Untouchables. Recently, Ms Mayawati, a leader of the Untouchables asked rhetorically, "If we are Harijans then what are the upper castes like Nehru, Gandhi and Patel? Are they bastards?"

That Gandhi was an "apostle of peace" is not true.

Gandhi was a "Hindu revivalist" and "Hindu politician" combined in one, who used nonviolence as a tool for political objectives. He used to coerce others to concede to his demands by threats of "going to fast unto death". He was no pacifist as is shown by his stand on the issue of Kashmir.

"One naturally thought that he would offer a nonviolent solution to the Kashmir issue and raise his moral stature. But no! He proved to be a false prophet. Seervai has documented that nonviolence with him was a political weapon. (H. M. Seervai, Partition of India, Legend and Reality, Bombay, 1989, p 172-173). He sanctioned the use of armed forces and laid the foundation of Kashmir problem which continues to haunt the subcontinent till today" (Sangat Singh, The Sikhs in History, 4th ed., 2001, p 258.)

According to Seervai, in a meeting with Viceroy Lord Wavell on August 27 1946, Gandhi thumped the table and said, "If India wants bloodbath, she shall have it and that if bloodbath was necessary, it would come about in spite of nonviolence." Wavell was dumbfounded at these words coming from the mouth of "apostle" of nonviolence.

Gandhi was a very cunning man. He was not satisfied with the title of "apostle of peace", he also wanted to project himself as a holy man, which for a Hindu required the practice of celibacy. He was a married man and proclaimed to be celibate at a relatively young age under forty. However, he used to test his celibacy by asking young girls to lie over him to find out whether he was in full control of his sexual feelings. I leave up to psychologists and psychiatrists to analyze what was in Gandhi's mind and what happened to the emotions of those poor girls! He was always surrounded by women.

So what is Gandhi's legacy to mankind?

The obvious one is the partition of subcontinent into "Hindu India" and "Muslim Pakistan and Bangladesh". These three nations are a "living hell" for minorities. For example, India which claims with pride to be the biggest democracy in the world has killed more Indians in the last fifty years than the British colonists killed in 300 years. More than 95% of those killed by Hindu governments are Christians, Muslims, Sikhs and Dalits (Untouchables). While the populations of these countries are groaning under the weight of poverty, hunger, illiteracy, ignorance and disease, India and Pakistan have built nuclear weapons. The next nuclear war will most probably be fought over the disputed territory of Kashmir in spite of the fact that neither India nor Pakistan has ever asked the Kashmiris what they want.

That Hindus are peace loving people and coexist peacefully with non-Hindus is also not true.

When Taliban destroyed Lord Buddha's statue in Afghanistan, there were worldwide protests against this heinous crime against humanity. The most vociferous demonstrations and protests were held in India. However, how little did the Hindu mobs realize that the first damage to the statue was done by Hindu rulers of Afghanistan during the frenzy of Hindu revival? Buddhism flourished as a major religion in India for several centuries. During the Hindu revival, Buddhists were given three choices like Jews and Muslims during the Spanish Inquisition. Either convert or leave the country. Large number of Buddhists fled to neighboring countries. Those who resisted were killed, Buddhist monasteries were destroyed, monks were murdered, and nuns were raped. Buddhist literature was burned and their religious centers were converted into Hindu centers. The famous place in Bihar State where Lord Buddha is supposed to have received his light (knowledge) is still under the control of Hindus in spite of the protests of international Bhuddist community.

The "myth makers" keep repeating that Hindus have lived peacefully with Muslims, Christians and others for hundreds of years. What they don't tell you is that during that period Muslims or the British ruled over the Indian territory. But look at the attitude of Hindus towards non-Hindus when Hindus were the rulers? During the revival of Hinduism they eradicated Buddhism from the land of its birth. All other progressive movements, which opposed the caste system were either crushed or subverted.

Immediately after independence in 1947, the so-called secular and liberal Hindu rulers lead by Jawahar Lal Nehru adopted an Indian Constitution, declaring "Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains" as Hindus with the stroke of a pen. Sikhs have been protesting against this heinous crime ever since. No Hindu leader worth the name has ever protested against this abominable injustice to the minorities. Imagine! How would the minorities react if the US Congress were to pass a law declaring all minorities as Christians?

The word Hindu is not found in any Hindu religious text or any other ancient writing. People who lived on the western side of Hindu Kush (killers of Hindus) mountains gave this name to the natives of India. The word Hindu means black, slave, robber, thief and a waylayer.

From my discussions with Americans about the caste system over the years, I have the impression that most of them think that caste system is like segregation or apartheid. Caste system may look like segregation or apartheid on the surface, but if one were to scratch the surface one would find that the Brahmnical caste system is the worst oppressive and exploitative system that exists on planet earth. Slavery and segregation in America and apartheid in South Africa have ended in a relatively short period, but the heinous caste system, which has been practiced in India for thousands of years, is still going strong. It is because the caste system was invented, taught, practiced and ordained by the Brahmnical (Hindu) religion.

Under segregation and apartheid the black people were denied their rights and had very few opportunities for advancement in comparison to white people. However, a black person under those circumstances could become a doctor, a teacher, and a minister or choose whatever occupation was available to them. Whereas the caste is stamped on you the moment you are born. There was no escape from this watertight multistory building with no stairs or ladder. You are born and die in the same caste, no matter how good or bad a person you are.

For example, a person born in a scavenger's family would also be a scavenger in spite of his great intelligence. He couldn't choose any other occupation. So a scavenger's descendents remained scavengers for thousands of years. This destroyed the creativity of the Indian population. No wonder the Hindu civilization, which is as old as the Chinese civilization has made insignificant contribution to the development of human society in comparison to the Chinese civilization.

It is a mistake to think that Nazism was the product of Hitler's sick mind. The roots of Nazism lie in the Hindu caste system. European colonists were intrigued by the Hindu caste system. They were astonished how Brahmins, who formed about 5% of India's population, were able to exploit the rest of Indians for thousands of years by asserting their caste and racial superiority. The British used the same Brahmnical strategy, they proclaimed their racial and intellectual superiority over Indians to control their vast Empire in India. At the pinnacle of British rule, there were only about 200,000 British personnel in India. Who you think managed the Empire? They were the brown-Englishmen (subjugated Indians) who managed the Empire.

European writers like Max Muler were also fascinated by the Hindu caste system. They admired the way the Brahmins maintained the caste and racial superiority over thousands of years. Why shouldn't the Europeans assert their racial and intellectual superiority the same way over black, brown, tan and yellow people? So people like Max Muler planted the seeds of racial superiority on the European soil. Others like him nurtured the seedlings, and the plants came into full blossom under Hitler. It is no coincidence that the Nazis used swastika, a propitious Brahmin symbol, as the emblem of the Nazi party.

I am willing to debate these issues with any one, anywhere, and on any stage.

Authors Note: An article Gandhi as a racist by Dr. Velu Anamlai (USA) published in Sikh Virsa, June 1997, was consulted for writing this letter.)

Role of Jews in world history
Writer, politics, Greg, research, social activist

Interesting revelations!! What is the ultimate truth only God knows!!

Commentary By Jayne Gardener

I always used to wonder what it was about Jews that made people throughout history despise them. If they were indeed "God's chosen" I thought, they had to be the unluckiest people in the history of the world.

Why were they persecuted throughout history? Why had the Nazis herded them into cattle cars and taken them to "extermination camps" to dispose once and for all of the "Jewish problem?"

I suddenly recognized that if Hitler had developed a "Final Solution" to the Jewish question, that there had to have been a "Jewish Problem." Could the Jews have in any way behaved in such a manner that would make the countries in which they resided turn against them, or were they just unfortunate, innocent victims?

I set out to find answers for my questions, mainly turning to the Internet, but also reading various books on the subject. What I found became increasingly disturbing to me. I had not known that throughout history, the Jews had been expelled from 79 countries, some countries more than once. I had not known that many of the claims they made about the Holocaust that I had believed unquestioningly for so long were in fact fraudulent.

Historical Fact.JPG

The books I had read and the movies I had seen about the "Holocaust"and wept over were nothing but thinly veiled attempts to garner unwavering sympathy for the state of Israel and an excuse to extort billions of dollars from Germany and 1.25 billion dollars from the Swiss banks. I discovered that a book I had read many times as a teenager and cried about, Anne Frank's Diary, had been at least partially written by someone other than Anne Frank.

I learned that the confessions at the Nuremburg Trials and the executions of so many German "war criminals" were extracted under torture and the defendants were being tried, judged and condemned by their very accusers.

I learned about the "false flag" operations, especially the Lavon affair and the tragedy of the USS Liberty, an American ship that was attacked by the Israelis during the 1967 war. 34 young American men were killed and many more wounded. To add insult to injury, the Israelis claimed that it was simply an unfortunate case of mistaken identity, something the survivors of the Liberty have always vehemently denied. They, however, were threatened with court martial if they were ever to tell their stories.

I learned about the Jonathan Pollard spy case and other incidents of Israeli Jews spying against their supposed "closest ally."


I became shocked and horrified as I learned about the treatment of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories at the hands of the Israeli Defense Forces and the Jewish settlers. Israel purports to be the only democracy in the middle east, but it's only a democracy for Jews. Non-Jews are not considered equal. I was saddened to see pictures of innocent Palestinian children burned beyond recognition or suffering from serious gunshot wounds after being targeted by the IDF for no other reason than that they are Palestinian.

I found out about the Jewish history of avariciousness, larceny, lying, manipulation and their questionable and usurious business practices.

I learned about their roles in the radical homosexual movement, the radical feminist movement, the pornography industry as well as their over-representation in the abortion industry.

I discovered their role in organized crime, in the slave trade, in the civil rights movement and in Communism, an ideology that is responsible for the deaths of untold millions and the repression of many millions more.

I learned that it was Jewish supremacists behind the war against Christianity and Christmas. It is they who want God out of the Pledge of Allegiance and all symbols of Christianity removed from public life. They have driven Christianity from the public schools despite Christianity being the majority religion.

They have taken Christmas out of the public school calendar despite the fact that it is a statutory holiday and it is named Christmas.

I read about the anti-Genteelism and hatefulness of the Babylonian Talmud and their utter disrespect for, and hostility towards Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary and Christianity and Christians in general.

I learned about their "chutzpah" in claiming that Gentile lives were worth no more than the lives of barnyard animals but that they considered Jewish lives to be akin to God Himself. It's okay to steal from a Gentile or to kill a Gentile, but Jewish lives are sacred.

I learned of their control of the majority of wealth, the media and academia despite them making up less than 2% of the population (even lower in Canada ). They are behind the ridiculous political correctness movement and hate crime legislation that was drafted so as to silence anyone who might figure out their agenda and attempt to shed light on it.

Men like German Rudolf, David Irving and many more, previously recognized as great historians, were arrested, charged with hate crimes and incarcerated simply for having made academic inquiry into a specific period of history. Other so called "revisionists" or "holocaust deniers" have been intimidated, harassed, assaulted and smeared simply for trying to get at the truth.

It is patently clear that the war in Iraq is due solely to Israel wanting to hobble her enemies by destabilizing their governments in order to achieve hegemony in the middle east. It would be unthinkable for Israeli Jews to die for this cause, so they manipulated the US into the war with the help of the Jewish Zionist " Israel firsters" in the Bush administration in order that the blood of way too many young American men and women is shed instead.

It is they who control the middle eastern foreign policy of the most powerful country in the world, the USA . It is they who control congress, the senate and the puppet president, George W. Bush.

They have such control in movies and television that we are now subjected to endless programs and Hollywood movies that mock Christianity, Christian values and degrade the traditional family.

After sober reflection on what I had discovered about Jewish supremacy and Zionism, I had to abandon all my previously held notions as to the history of Jewish persecution. What I have trouble understanding is why they continue this behavior in whichever society they live, knowing that eventually they will overplay their hand and their perfidy will be exposed yet again. Has history taught them nothing?

As more and more people become aware of what is going on and who is responsible for it, anger is going to rise as it already has in the former Soviet Union and eastern European countries. They may control television, movies and the print media, but they don't control the internet.

At least not yet. Blogs and websites devoted to "outing" the Jewish supremacists will ultimately be their downfall. If everyone who sees this information passes it on to at least one other person, the crimes and misdeeds of the Jewish supremacists and Zionists will be exposed. Please, do your part. Pass it on. Our world as we know it is counting on you.


Writer, politics, Greg, research, social activist

By Air Commodore (R) Khalid Iqbal
Spearhead Research

Indian Foreign Minister Salman Khurshid's recent wish that: 'it is high time India and Pakistan move forward together hand-in-hand', is rather captivating. Recent overtures from both sides clearly indicate that two neighbouring countries want prosperity in the region and for that they agree that resolution of all disputes, including Kashmir, is a priority.

Pakistan has all along been pursuing this objective. It is unfortunate that some of very meaningful peace processes between the two countries went astray on one reason or the other. As Pakistan is likely to be a beneficiary in case of equitable resolution of most of territory related disputes, Pakistan is always keen to see the conclusive phase of the efforts aimed at resolving these issues. Unfortunately, the two countries have not been able to achieve anything worthwhile in territory related disputes.

Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh has recently said that India wants to resolve all issues, including Jammu and Kashmir, with Pakistan through dialogue. Indian Independence Act had laid down clear terms of reference for the rulers of princely states. They were given the choice to freely accede to either India or Pakistan, or to remain independent, while doing so they were to take into account the aspirations of their people. Ruler of Kashmir failed to do so, and while under duress, he invited the Indian armed forces to invade his own state.

Kashmir is certainly at the pinnacle of India-Pakistan disputes - an issue recognized by the UN, and on which settlement framework has also been specified in the relevant UN resolutions. To remind the world about the continuation of the conflict, UN Observers mission continues to be stationed in the region. The first group of United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) arrived in Jammu and Kashmir on 24 January of 1949 to supervise the ceasefire between India and Pakistan. The UNSC resolutions remain arguably the best and judicious way out for settling this dispute. While addressing the 67 thsession of the General Assembly, President Zardari had rightly attributed the non-resolution of Kashmir dispute to the failure of the UN system.

Therefore, to succeed, any durable peace initiative between Pakistan and India must cater to break the stalemate on this important issue. It would have been in the fitness of thing had the Indian foreign minister put forward any fresh proposals on the Kashmir issue as well. Without demonstration of political will to tackle the Kashmir depute, even fairy tale wishes remain, at best, just noble desires; devoid of implementation tools.

Spells of Kashmir intifada, in their scope and scale, visibly get out of India's control despite Indian army's heavy presence. There is now considerable resistance from the Indian mainland as well, where conscientious members of the civil society have started to censure the central government for continued occupation of Kashmir. World watches with dismay that even by stationing of around 600,000 combatants for over a decade, India has not been able to subdue the spirit of Kashmir's of the IHK.

IHK has the unenviable distinction of being the most militarised zone in the world. The hardest hit victim of the conflict has been the socio-economic fabric of the Kashmir. Agriculture which forms about 48 percent of the state domestic product is witnessing a negative growth. Tourism involving the livelihood of thousands of people has also been badly hit by the conflict. During October 2012, two reports were released pertaining human rights situation in the IHK. Reports by Amnesty International (AI) and Citizen's Council for Justice (CCJ) were released in a quick succession. Both dossiers have adequately exposed the deplorable Human Rights (HR) conditions in IHK.

To make the people of Kashmir feel secure, it is necessary to scrap all the draconian laws like the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), Public Safety Act, Disturbed Areas Act, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act etc. Moreover, as confidence building measure, it is essential to retrieve the armed forces to their barracks and let the police take care of the law and order. IHK government should also release all prisoners of conscience.

Pakistan has consistently maintained its stance on Kashmir. It wants the resolution of Kashmir issue in line with the wishes of Kashmiri people, as ordained by a number of UN resolutions and as envisaged by universally accepted democratic principles of the right of self determination. Pakistan will continue diplomatic and political support of Kashmiri people in their struggle to achieve their right to decide their future.

In this backdrop, Pakistan's Foreign Minister has extended an invitation to 8 members of the executive council of the All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC), to visit Pakistan from 15 to 22 December 2012. The initiative has been taken to begin a consultative process between the political leadership of Pakistan, AJK and pro-movement leaders of IHK. This initiative is expected to jump-start the process for peaceful resolution of Kashmir issue. Kashmir experts believe that such visits by the Hurriyat leadership suit both sides. Pakistan envisages that APHC could act as a catalyst in bridging the gap between the respective government's standpoint and public aspirations of the people of Kashmir.

From Kashmiri perspective, leaders of both side of Kashmir should be facilitated to meet each other frequently to narrow down their perceptional gaps. And at the same time, India and Pakistan should continue with their good-will initiatives kick-started during President of Pakistan's non-state visit to India, because this could enable both the countries to discover common grounds for conflict resolution. Pakistan feels that the Kashmiris of both sides should take advantage of the current improvement of relations between India and Pakistan, and it is in this context that APHC leadership has been invited.

Rumours have it that under pressure from India's hawkish politicians and media elements, hurdles could be created to disrupt the process. Some elements of Indian media have started a negative campaign against the visit of APHC leaders branding them as 'Separatists'. Understandably, some elements from India are not sincere towards resolution of Kashmir issue through consultative process. They do not want Kashmiri leadership to visit Pakistan and interact with Pakistani and Kashmiri political leadership. Their motive is to jeopardize the consultative process initiated by Pakistan. These disruptive elements are focusing at creating divide within the pro-movement camp by allowing only a few leaders to visit Pakistan. It would be unfortunate if India lets this opportunity slip by through administrative manipulation to deny right of travel to all the invitees. This will indeed be the first test of the new foreign minister of India.

Ready, Steady, Go! : Re-visiting the Indo-Pak arms race
Writer, politics, Greg, research, social activist

Tacstrat Analysis

In a world of shrinking economies and rising deficits, it is still interesting to see India spike its defense budget by 17%. It is reportedly investing in air, naval and ground facilities like fighter planes, aircraft carriers, missiles, sub marines and helicopters.

Indian generals would support this move for various reasons. Indigenous ordnance projects for manufacturing tanks and aircrafts have been unsuccessful causing the armed forces to rely heavily on antiquated Russian artillery and weapons. As a rising Asian power, India has to compete with neighboring powers for a share in the global market and at the same time guard itself from hostile forces. Its economy has been prospering and with a strong democratic setup, India can afford to boost its defense capabilities.


Tacstrat: Getting Waziristan Right
Writer, politics, Greg, research, social activist

Tacstrat Analysis

North Waziristan figures prominently on the entire terrorism scene. Every terrorist or would be terrorist arrested indicates some kind of direct or indirect link to North Waziristan making it a point of convergence for anyone contemplating a terrorist act. All reports confirm the presence of Afghan Taliban personified by the Haqqani Network, the 'Pakistan Taliban- Tehrik Taliban Pakistan and an assortment of Chechens, Uzbeks, Turkmen, Arabs and even Western origin people in North Waziristan together with kidnappers, drugs and weapon smugglers and criminals from Pakistan who go there to rest and recuperate after their latest venture and before the next one. The outreach from this area into the urban centers of Pakistan links it to various extremist militant outfits that are ready to do whatever is required for a price and with the added benefit of furthering their own ethnic, sectarian, political or resource gathering agendas. It goes without saying that there may be, and probably is, external exploitation of this complex situation. This cauldron of criminal, subversive, insurgent and militant activity is the single most important reason for Pakistan's image worldwide as the epicenter of terrorism and for the economic decline fuelled by a destabilized internal security situation. The combined threat that this situation poses now threatens Pakistan's existence as a state.



Log in