SPY EYES

Complaints by Pakistan of executions, beheadings in secret cross-border raids by Indian forces

In classified protests to a United Nations watchdog that have never been disclosed till now, Pakistan has accused Indian soldiers of involvement in the torture and decapitation of at least 12 Pakistani soldiers in cross-Line of Control raids since 1998, as well as the massacre of 29 civilians.

The allegations, laid out in confidential Pakistani complaints to the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP), suggest that Indian and Pakistani troops stationed on the Line of Control remain locked in a pattern of murderous violence, despite the ceasefire both armies entered into in November 2003. Earlier this month, bilateral relations were severely damaged after a series of LoC skirmishes, which culminated in thebeheading and mutilation of two Indian soldiers Lance-Naik Hemraj Singh and Lance-Naik Sudhakar Singh.

The Ministry of Defence did not respond to an e-mail from The Hindu, seeking comment on the alleged decapitation of Pakistani civilians and troops reported to UNMOGIP. However, a military spokesperson said the issue had “not been raised by Pakistan in communications between the two Directors-General of Military Operations.”

The Ministry of External Affairs also said the UNMOGIP complaints had not been raised in diplomatic exchanges between the two countries.

“Ever since 9/11,” a senior Pakistan army officer told The Hindu, “we have sought to downplay these incidents, aware that a public backlash [could] push us into a situation we cannot afford on the LoC, given that much of our army is now committed to our western borders. Each of these incidents has been protested by us on both military and UNMOGIP channels.”

UNMOGIP, set up after the India-Pakistan war of 1947-1948 to monitor ceasefire violations, does not conduct criminal investigations, or assign responsibility for incidents. The reports of its ceasefire monitors are sent to the organisation’s headquarters in New York, and forwarded to the Ministry of Defence in New Delhi.

Ever since 1972, India has responded to UNMOGIP queries with a standard-form letter, saying it believes the organisation has lost its relevance following the demarcation of the LoC. Earlier this month, India argued in the United Nations that the organisation ought to be wound-up.

Massacre for massacre

The most savage cross-LoC violence Indian forces are alleged to have participated in was the killing of 22 civilians at the village of Bandala, in the Chhamb sector, on the night of March 26-27, 1998. The bodies of two civilians, according to Pakistan’s complaint to UNMOGIP, were decapitated; the eyes of several others were allegedly gouged out by the attackers. The Pakistani military claimed to have recovered an Indian-made watch from the scene of the carnage, along with a hand-written note which asked, “How does your own blood feel”?

First reported by The Hindu’s sister publication Frontline in its June 19, 1998 issue, the Bandala massacre is alleged to have been carried out by irregulars backed by Indian special forces in retaliation for the massacre of 29 Hindu villagers at Prankote, in Jammu and Kashmir, by the Lashkar-e-Taiba. The LeT attackers slit the throats of their victims, who included women and children.

No Indian investigation of the Bandala killings has ever been carried out. However, an officer serving in the Northern Command at the time said the massacre was “intended to signal that communal massacres by jihadists, who were after all trained and equipped by Pakistan’s military, were a red line that could not be crossed with impunity.”

The Lashkar, however, continued to target Hindu villagers in the Jammu region; 10 were killed at Deesa and Surankote just days later, on May 6, 1998. In 2001, 108 people were gunned down in 11 communal massacres, and 83 people were killed in five incidents in 2002 — a grim toll that only died out after the 2003 ceasefire.

Brutal retaliation

Even though the large-scale killings of civilians did not take place again, Pakistan continued to report cross-border attacks, involving mutilations, to UNMOGIP.

Six months after the Kargil war, on the night of January 21-22, 2000, seven Pakistani soldiers were alleged to have been captured in a raid on a post in the Nadala enclave, across the Neelam River. The seven soldiers, wounded in fire, were allegedly tied up and dragged across a ravine running across the LoC. The bodies were returned, according to Pakistan’s complaint, bearing signs of brutal torture.

“Pakistan chose to underplay the Nadala incident,” a senior Pakistani military officer involved with its Military Operations Directorate told The Hindu, “as General Pervez Musharraf had only recently staged his coup, and did not want a public outcry that would spark a crisis with India.”

Indian military sources told The Hindu that the raid, conducted by a special forces unit, was intended to avenge the killing of Captain Saurabh Kalia, and five soldiers — sepoys Bhanwar Lal Bagaria, Arjun Ram, Bhika Ram, Moola Ram and Naresh Singh — of the 4 Jat Regiment. The patrol had been captured on May 15, 1999, in the Kaksar sector of Kargil. Post mortem revealed that the men’s bodies had been burned with cigarette-ends and their genitals mutilated.

Less detail is available on the retaliatory cycles involved in incidents that have taken place since the ceasefire went into place along the LoC in 2003 — but Pakistan’s complaints to UNMOGIP suggest that there has been steady, but largely unreported, cross-border violence involving beheadings and mutilations.

Indian troops, Pakistan alleged, killed a JCO, or junior commissioned officer, and three soldiers in a raid on a post in the Baroh sector, near Bhimber Gali in Poonch, on September 18, 2003. The raiders, it told UNMOGIP, decapitated one soldier and carried his head off as a trophy.

Near-identical incidents have taken place on at least two occasions since 2008, when hostilities on the LoC began to escalate again. Indian troops, Pakistan’s complaints record, beheaded a soldier and carried his head across on June 19, 2008, in the Bhattal sector in Poonch. Four Pakistani soldiers, UNMOGIP was told, died in the raid.

The killings came soon after a June 5, 2008 attack on the Kranti border observation post near Salhotri village in Poonch, which claimed the life of 2-8 Gurkha Regiment soldier Jawashwar Chhame.

Finally, on August 30, 2011, Pakistan complained that three soldiers, including a JCO, were beheaded in an Indian raid on a post in the Sharda sector, across the Neelam river valley in Kel. The Hindu had first reported the incident based on testimony from Indian military sources, who said two Pakistani soldiers had been beheaded following the decapitation of two Indian soldiers near Karnah. The raid on the Indian forward position, a highly placed military source said, was carried out by Pakistani special forces, who used rafts to penetrate India’s defences along the LoC.

Fragile ceasefire

Part of the reason why the November 2003 ceasefire failed to end such savagery, government sources in both India and Pakistan told The Hindu, is the absence of an agreed mechanism to regulate conflicts along the LoC. Though both sides have occasional brigade-level flag meetings, and local post commanders exchange communications, disputes are rarely reported to higher authorities until tensions reach boiling point. Foreign offices in both countries, diplomats admitted, are almost never briefed on crises brewing on the LoC.

In October last year, highly placed military sources said, Pakistan’s Director-General of Military Operations complained about Indian construction work around Charunda, in Uri. His Indian counterpart, Lieutenant-General Vinod Bhatia, however, responded that India’s works were purely intended to prevent illegal border crossings. The unresolved dispute led to exchanges of fire, which eventually escalated into shelling and the killings of soldiers on both sides.

The November 2003 ceasefire, Indian diplomatic sources say, was based on an unwritten “agreement,” which in essence stipulated that neither side would reinforce its fortifications along the LoC — a measure first agreed to after the 1971 war. In 2006, the two sides exchanged drafts for a formal agreement. Since then, the sources said, negotiations have stalled over differing ideas on what kind of construction is permissible. “In essence,” a senior government official said, “we accept that there should be no new construction, but want to be allowed to expand counter-infiltration measures and expand existing infrastructure.”

India insists that it needs to expand counter-infiltration infrastructure because of escalating operations by jihadist groups across the LoC. Pakistan argues that India’s own figures show a sharp decline in operations by jihadists in Jammu and Kashmir. Last year, according to the Indian government, 72 terrorists, 24 civilians and 15 security personnel, including police, were killed in terrorist violence in the State — lower, in total, than the 521 murders recorded in Delhi alone. In 2011, the figures were, respectively, 100, 40 and 33; in 2010, 232, 164 and 69.

“You can’t say that you need more border defences to fight off jihadists when you yourself say there is less and less jihadist violence,” a Pakistani military official said. “The only reason there are less jihadists,” an Indian military officer responded, “is because we’ve enhanced our defences.”

Indian and Pakistani diplomats last met on December 27 to discuss the draft agreement, but could make no headway.

By PRAVEEN SWAMI
THE HINDU

Queen Beatrix, 75, of the Netherlands will abdicate the throne this spring, passing the crown to her eldest son, Crown Prince Willem-Alexander, 45.

Explaining her decision to her Dutch subjects, she said, “It was not because the office was too heavy for me, but because the responsibility for this country should lie in the hands of a new generation.”

Some wonder why Queen Elizabeth II, an octogenarian, hasn’t made a similar concession to youth. But the modern British monarchy is founded on a different set of principles. As much as Britons might enjoy a change of pace at Windsor Castle, something faster and fresher, the monarchy in Britain is not about novelty. It’s about staying the course, resolve and perseverance.

Indeed in a culture similar to ours that places a premium on youth and beauty, the British monarchy stands out as one of those rare institutions where aging, with all of its complications and humiliations, is allowed to — and expected to — take place in full public view.

This is a far cry from the Netherlands, where abdication seems to be standard practice. Beatrix’s mother, Queen Juliana, abdicated the throne in 1980 at the age of 70; Juliana’s mother, Queen Wilhelmina, abdicated in 1948 at the age of 68. In Britain, Edward VIII’s decision to abdicate in 1936 so he could marry the American divorcée Wallis Simpson remains the exception in the House of Windsor rather than the rule.

Consider King George III, who reigned from 1760 until his death in 1820 at the age of 81. Beginning in 1788, the king suffered periodic bouts from what was likely porphyria, a metabolic disorder affecting the nervous system.

By 1810, he was permanently insane. Blind and infirm, George III spent the last 10 years of his reign doddering about in Windsor Castle. Admittedly, George’s son, the future George IV, served as regent for most of this difficult period.

Queen Victoria, George III’s granddaughter, similarly reigned from 1837 until her death, also at the age of 81, in 1901 — despite suffering a host of ailments in later years, including failing eyesight, insomnia and rheumatism.

Yet both monarchs were perhaps more popular in their oldest age than ever before.

George III survived the loss of the American colonies and the scandals surrounding his alleged madness to win the intense loyalty of most of his subjects. Following his 1809 Golden Jubilee, a ceremony marking the 50th anniversary of a monarch’s rule, the London Times proudly proclaimed that the event had been “celebrated by all ranks of people in this great metropolis, in a manner worthy of an aged and venerable King, and a loyal and enlightened nation.”

And Queen Victoria overcame early skepticism about her capabilities — and a dramatic curtailment in support during the 1860s, when she retreated from public view to mourn the death of her husband, Prince Albert — to become the “Great White Queen,” and the “Grandmother of Europe.”

At her 60th anniversary Diamond Jubilee in 1897, Victoria was feted like no sovereign before her. She may have only been able to offer a feeble wave from her carriage as she passed by throngs of well-wishers on her way to St. Paul’s Cathedral, but her symbolic weight could not be overestimated.

The current British monarch follows in her predecessors’ footsteps. When the young Elizabeth received word in February 1952, while traveling abroad in Kenya, that her father George VI had passed away, she rushed home knowing that the title she had just inherited would be hers until death.

“By the sudden death of my dear father I am called to assume the duties and responsibilities of sovereignty,” the 25-year old queen explained to her privy councilors back in London.

“My heart is too full for me to say more to you today than I shall always work, as my father did throughout his reign, to advance the happiness and prosperity of my peoples, spread as they are all the world over.”

When Elizabeth said “I shall always work,” she meant it. Sixty years later, at the age of 86, the Queen maintains an active schedule and is the patron of more than 600 charities and organizations.

Add to this the fact that Elizabeth’s reign, like those of her predecessors, has only seemed to improve with age, at least if measured by public approval ratings — last May, shortly before the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee, the market research company Ipsos MORI determined that support for the monarchy among adults in Britain is at an all-time high — and there’s little reason to think that Elizabeth will leave her post anytime soon.

Much as Prince Charles and Prince William may grow tired of waiting in the wings, a Platinum Jubilee could well take place in 2022.

CNN

THE post-2014 situation in Afghanistan, after the withdrawal of the US/Nato/ International Security Assistance Force, has been the subject of a most vexing debate in recent times.

The main difficulty lies in predicting the real intentions of various actors involved in the Afghan imbroglio, particularly of the US.

The US is under domestic pressure to pull out its forces from this unwinnable war but is trying to avoid the stigma of defeat. The Americans appear confused and are hardly realistic when it comes to putting together a coherent policy for the end of the Afghan mission.

The US, without any proper strategy, has been unable to sort out the mess in Afghanistan for which it is partially responsible. It has destabilised the whole region through faulty strategies. The only ‘trophy’ which it can claim is the elimination of Osama bin Laden. Otherwise, the ‘terrorism’ which the Americans came to eliminate has increased, not decreased.

The US decision to maintain bases in Afghanistan after 2014 lends itself to certain interpretations, particularly keeping in view America’s worldwide ambitions in general and in this region in particular.

The presence of US bases will not only be unacceptable to many Afghans; Russia, China, the Central Asian republics, Iran, Pakistan and possibly India too may have reservations regarding American presence in this region.

The US believes that besides a reduced presence in terms of American bases, Afghan security forces, including the army and police, will be in a position to take over the responsibilities of maintaining law and order from 2014 onwards. However, those who understand Afghanistan fully know that such arrangements will never bring peace and stability to the country.

There are four possible scenarios which may emerge by 2014.

The first scenario is that the US will seriously negotiate with the Afghan Taliban, accept some of their demands and make them part of the Afghan government. This would be an ideal arrangement but is highly unlikely for a number of reasons. The Taliban are not likely to accept a US presence on Afghan soil even if all other issues are amicably resolved between the two sides.

The provision of bases will be a deal-wrecker. Besides, other stakeholders like the Northern Alliance will not accept a deal between the US and the Taliban.

The second scenario is an intra-Afghan dialogue, which Pakistan supports. The Afghan government has constituted an Afghan High Peace Council headed by Salahuddin Rabbani, who succeeded his father the late Burhanuddin Rabbani.

This council has the backing of the Northern Alliance. Pakistan has released certain mid-ranking Taliban prisoners on the recommendations of the council and is prepared to release more high-ranking detainees if the US expresses no objections.

The Afghan Taliban so far have not agreed to negotiations with this council as the militia does not recognise the current Afghan government. But they have softened their stance somewhat, particularly with the release of Taliban prisoners by Pakistan.

Pakistan also wants the US to initiate talks with the Taliban to support the intra-Afghan dialogue and to enable it to withdraw from Afghanistan in a peaceful manner. But the US has yet to take a firm decision.

The third scenario, which is most likely, is that the negotiations and posturing will continue with frequent breakdowns and the use of force by both sides until the final withdrawal date arrives. The situation at that time will be that the US will have five major bases in Afghanistan and Afghan security forces would be taking responsibility for maintaining law and order.

The present Afghan government will be in place bolstered by the American bases with an adequate US air force presence. But as soon as the bulk of the forces leave Afghanistan, there will be a Taliban resurgence in the southern and eastern parts of the country.

Although the US has built a formidable base in Kandahar, the Taliban may well be able to overrun this. And the US will continue to hold on to bases such as Bagram (Kabul), Shin Dhand (Herat) and bases in the north, particularly in Mazar-i-Sharif.

That would mean a de facto division of Afghanistan: the Taliban would have their ‘Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan’ with its capital at Kandahar, separate from the north of the country. They would continue with their sporadic attacks in the north, though the US will not let Kabul fall to the militia. This means that civil war in Afghanistan would continue, with serious implications for Pakistan.

The north of Afghanistan is less inhospitable for US troops, but it is vulnerable to attacks from Pakistan’s tribal areas of Mohmand, Bajaur and from Dir from the Pakistani Taliban.

The fourth possibility, which is highly unlikely, is that the US pulls out entirely from Afghanistan in the manner of the Soviet withdrawal in 1988.

This would make sense if the intra-Afghan dialogue succeeded and the US and other stakeholders were satisfied that the Afghans, including the Afghan Taliban, would live peacefully, and Afghanistan’s neighbours would guarantee they would not interfere in that country.

This is idealistic but not impossible. It would be the best option and the international community should support it in political and financial terms.

All possibilities visualised here have varying implications for Pakistan. But Pakistan should not have any favourites in Afghanistan. It should treat all Afghans as equal and make special efforts to mend relations with the Northern Alliance.

It should also be ready to launch effective operations against the Pakistani Taliban in Fata as soon as possible.

This can be done immediately after 2014 or before, because the Pakistani Taliban have their sights set on Islamabad, not Kabul.

Dawn News

Terrorism, religious intolerance and Pak-US relations are often in the media spotlight – but water shortages, perhaps the greatest threat to Pakistan’s survival, is an issue that remains largely untouched.

Pakistan has been a victim of severe natural disasters and health crises – from annual flooding, to a rise in water borne diseases, to high rates of infant mortality because of contaminated water and low agricultural output.

Yet with drone strikes, the Afghan war, and pressure to partake in the ‘War on Terror’,  scarce funds keep getting diverted to the military while those for the health, education and water sectors continue to shrivel up.

The figures that indicate how urgent the situation is however, are astounding. According to a 

Combined with intensive irrigation and poor drainages, the shortage is accompanied by waterlogging and soil salinity in Pakistan’s rural areas, causing extensive damage to valuable agricultural land.

Some areas are particularly badly affected. Kugelman’s report indicates that since large amounts of water have been diverted upstream in Punjab to satisfy a burgeoning population’s demand for agricultural goods, livelihoods in Sindh have suffered the brunt of this diversion.

The Indus delta therefore, according to a Pakistani environmentalist, is suffering from severe degradation. This has led to an unfortunate mix of coastal poverty and great damage to the delta’s entire ecosystem.

A solution?

It is obvious, therefore, that water shortages in the country is a serious issue that has to be dealt with sooner or later. Enter Marco Ganouna, CEO of Water Production Systems (WPS); a man who may have the answer to these problems.

Before he can be asked anything, Ganouna asked a curious question himself.

“Do you like to cook?” After receiving affirmation, he said, “So do I, but I keep my ingredients basic.”

“Being simple is a very complicated thing,” Ganouna added, before explaining why he used the analogy: the mission of the WPS is to provide developing countries with means of clean water through a customised business model – and he believes the trick is to keep it simple.

What the WPS has done is to develop an advanced air-to-water technology which provides clean water across the globe, whether it’s through desalination, purification or reverse osmosis.

“The quantity of water in the world will always stay the same, but the quality of the water changes. The population is increasing; thus, the need for more clean water. However, if you manage it well, there is enough water to feed the growing population,” he assured.

The WPS model

WPS works on a simple model – once they are provided the necessary information from either the local authorities or government bodies managing water, they aim to provide solutions within 3-4 weeks’ time.

The data they require covers a spectrum: the number of people, the purpose of the clean water (for example, whether it’s for farming needs or domestic use), and the distance of the location from the water source.

Once the groundwork is done, WPS installs a water station as close to the consumption point as possible – this minimises the risk of leaks, and hence contamination, before the water reaches one’s tap.

“We are looking at those areas that nobody bothers to look at,” Ganouna explained, adding that the WPS is currently in talks with local authorities in Indonesia, China, Brunei and India for providing clean water to rural areas.

Tackling Pakistan’s water shortage

The WPS CEO explained how Indian Punjab is suffering serious consequences as a result of contaminated water: cities and villages feed from the same chemical and bacteria infested water which flows out, unregulated, as waste from flourishing industries along the river banks.

“The scenario is absolutely the same in rural Pakistan,” Ganouna said.

But this scenario can be fixed, he added. According to the CEO, his study of the Punjab in India revealed that by treating water in villages, there was an immediate positive social impact: new jobs were created, there was a rise in agricultural productivity, the levels of the water table increased, and each person saved $4.30 per month in healthcare.

With a multide of awards and 30 years of experience in the hi-tech industry to his name, Ganouna, an American, oftens travel to Asia for work. When asked about a hypothetical scenario of providing water to one million people in rural Pakistan, the CEO came back to his original point: “The solution is very simple”.

Ganouna explained that according to the UN, an average person needs 50 litres of water daily for drinking and domestic use, which means one million people need around 50 million litres. “We’re looking at a cost of $0.30 – $1.50 per 1000 litres,” he conjectures, adding, “And about 6-10 months for us to make the water available to your one million people.”

The WPS chief went even further. “If I were to be given the task of providing safe drinking water to the majority of the Pakistani population along with adequate resources to do it and a real ‘carte blanche’ from the government, we would reach that goal within five years,” he promised.

Why Pakistan’s needs are urgent

Pakistan is lingering just above the water 

Such a calamity would cause as much damage, if not more, than an all-out war.

Karachi, for example, epitomises just how dangerous the lack of clean water can be. Water flowing through the city contains lead, chromium and cyanide. More metals have been found in Karachi’s harbour than in any other major world harbour, according to Kugelman’s report.

On top of this excessive population is global warming, which has caused massive reductions in the frozen areas of the Himalayas, thereby slashing the volume of annual snowmelts and water in the Indus River system.

But whether climate changes or a population explosion are the main culprit, what is obvious is that a lack of clean water has not only caused Pakistan’s fields to be drier, but for lives to be lost.

With this kind of critical shortage at hand, it’s time to look at alternative solutions, whether it’s Ganouna’s WPS or something else that could provide a thirsty population with necessary respite.

Dawn News

In the recent past, by showing a sense of great optimism for the peace of the region, Pakistan agreed with Indian old demand to strengthen the Confidence Building Measures (CBMs) in order to resolve the outstanding issues such as terrorism, Siachen, Sir Creek, Wullar Barrage and water including main dispute of Kashmir.

As part of the CBMs, under the Aman Ki Asha initiative, recently renowned Pakistani and Indian media anchors, retired high civil and military officials including film stars have participated in various gatherings in both the countries to create favourable atmosphere for the peace process, and to discuss practical solution to the bilateral issues.

During the visit of India’s External Affairs Minister S M Krishna to Pakistan on September 9, 2012, Islamabad and New Delhi also signed agreements of liberalised visa regime and a memorandum of understanding on cultural exchanges in addition to agreeing on new cross-Line of Control (LoC) Confidence Building Measures related to trade and travel. Although Pakistan was already importing vegetables from India through Wagah border, yet implementation of these new agreements has started. Besides, Islamabad also signed a number of trade agreements with New Delhi, which allowed India exports of mutltiple items across the Wagah border. It is also likely to grant India Most Favoured Nation status, which permits trade in almost everything.

In fact, trade between both the neighbouring countries is more beneficial to Indian largest economy than Pakistan. While using delaying tactics for the settlement of real issues, India has been availing the opportunity of CBMs to get maximum economic advantage from Pakistan. In these terms, Indian greed for materialistic gains is unlimited.

In this regard, a recent report disclosed that the management of Sindh Engro Coal Mining Company (SECMC), a subsidiary of Engro Group was engaged in feasibility study of the coal mining in Thar. Regrettably, our media did not take the notice that the company is also considering to sell Pakistani coal to India for latter’s projects in Tamil Nadu, Gujrat and Naveli, which is a cause of concern for all Pakistanis.

Some online reliable sources suggest that Indian Embassy Economic and Commercial Counsellor, Arvind Saxena who is Raw Station Chief at Islamabad is making strenuous efforts for striking deal between SECMC and Indian-based companies, Tethyan Copper Company Pvt Limited (TCC) and Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited (BHEL). In this connection, Arvind Saxsena arranged different visits of SECMC officials to India.

However, in July 2012, a parliamentary trade delegation of Pakistan which also included daughter of chief minister Sindh, Nafisa Shah, visited New Delhi and discussed the feasibility and possibility of cooperation on Thar Coal Project. For the purpose, Dr Mahesh Malani, (MNA) close associate of Pakistan’s President Asif Ali Zardari also visited New Delhi. Earlier, Indian delegation of five persons also visited Lahore and Karachi and held meetings with Pakistani concerned businessmen.

It is notable that the management of SECMC admitted that it is in consultation with the Indian companies TATA Power and BHEL for technology transfers to conduct open cast mining of Thar coal.

Meanwhile, there are rumors that corrupt political and business mafia, backed by the US and India is secretly involved in this multibillion dollars project, while main players allegedly include co-chairman of a political party and some officials of Pakistan.

On the other hand, Pakistan’s experts are of the view that Thar Coal Project should preferably be developed under the administration and technical consultation of Major General (r) Pervez Akmal, Corps of Engineers, who is already working to develop an institutional model for Thar coal. And services of Dr Shahid Muneer who is Director of Center for Coal Technology at the University of Punjab should also be got for the project.

It is estimated that the Thar coal field of Sindh has reserves of 175 billion tons which are 70 times higher than Pakistan’s total gas reserves. It is due to this reason that Australian and German investors also desire to invest in Thar Coal Project. In this context, in 2012, while talking to a delegation of Islamabad Women’s Chamber of Commerce and Industry (IWCCI), Australian Ambassador to Pakistan Peter Heyward said that Australia is interested in Thar coal development because key Australian mining and oil and gas companies have keenly been watching these developments in Pakistan.

This is worth-mentioning that representatives of Sindh Coal Authority, project coordinator Engro, Oracle Coalfield UK, and coal gasification project gave presentation to the committee on the progress of their projects. But Dr. Samar Mubarakmand, the pioneer of the project did not participate in the meeting. The best way is that both federal and Sindh governments should provide the committed share of the allocated funds for these projects. Dr. Mubarakmand has already revealed that coal reserves are also available in powder form under water—Pakistan could produce 50,000 megawatt electricity and 100 million barrel diesel just through the gasification of these reserves.

Reportedly, in 1992, the Geological Survey of Pakistan (GSP) discovered huge sub-surface deposits of coal, the second largest in the world as located in Tharparkar District of Sindh.

Notably, a press report of January 8, 2013 pointed out that the Thar Coal Project which has high potential to change the energy landscape of Pakistan continues to move slowly. It must be developed by country’s technical experts and economic managers who should ensure that vested interests do not participate in developing the project.

At present, Pakistan’s power generation capacity stands at 14,000MW, while the country will require 26,000MW by 2020, out of which around 10,000MW could be produced from Thar coal. So, the main aim of developing Thar Coal Project is to provide affordable and sustainable electricity to consumers using domestic resources. Reliance on indigenous fuel is likely to save billions of dollars in foreign exchange, which are currently being spent on import of expensive RFO (Refined Furnace Oil).

Now, the dilemma is that Thar Coal Project needs investment of about 3 billion dollars for infrastructure and development. But, instead of relying on local funds, rulers seek to give contract to alien powers which are working against the national interest of Pakistan.

It is fortune of Pakistan that it has huge natural and minerals resources. In case of proper exploration and utilisation of these resources, Pakistan can not only become a self-reliant country, but can also get rid of dependency on other hostile countries. No doubt, faulty decisions of the incompetent governments, fragile economy and lack of modern technology brought the country to the present multiple crises. Particularly, Islamabad must also get the help of China to develop the Thar Coal Project, as the Chinese companies are already working at various projects in the country.

Especially, Pakistan’s media should expose the designs of internal and external entities which intend to provide opportunities to the anti-Pakistan foreign investors regarding Thar coal. Media commentators should also emphasise that in coordination with its close friend China, the country’s reliance on its own talent and resources is necessary for the development of this project.

It is of particular attention that by taking note of the foreign plotters regarding Balochistan’s Reko-Diq gold and copper mining project, the Supreme Court of Pakistan gave its verdict on January 7, 2013 declaring the agreement signed in this respect on July 23, 1993 as void and in conflict with the laws of the country.

Similarly, Supreme Court should also take notice of the Thar Coal Project, while the Punjab Forum (PF) has requested the apex court in this respect. In this context, President of the Punjab Forum, Baig Raj stated, “Supreme Court should immediately take notice of the situation and initiate action against lobbies which are working to advance the agenda of foreign powers and multinational oil companies.”

Nonetheless, under the cover of CBMs, India which has rapidly been promoting its trade with Pakistan has avaricious eyes on the Thar Coal Project.

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

By Sajjad Shaukat
SHOAH

Protests are being organized and threats to stall the proceedings of next Lok Sabha session are being dished out to oppose the Home Minister Sushil Kukar Shinde’s statement about the Hindu terrorism, its links with BJP and RSS. (23 Jan 2013). There are two major components of this statement. One is the use of the prefix Hindu for terrorism, and two about RSS-BJP links with terror training camps. What Shinde called Hindu terrorism has also been called Saffron terrorism or Hindutva terrorism. This prefix is to point out to acts of terror indulged in by the likes of Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur, Swami Aseemanand, Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit, Kalsangara, Sunil Joshi and many like them who were either actively associated with the ideology of Hindutva, or even were organizationally associated with RSS. Others were at that time or previously linked with some progeny of RSS like ABVP, Bajrang Dal etc. Many of them were part of organizations like Sanatan Sanstha, Abhinav Bhararat, who again aim at the goal of Hindu Nation or are ideologically inspired by the agenda of RSS.

The home minister’s remarks are based on investigations done Anti Terror Squads of different states and by National Investigation Agency. Earlier the announcement was made by the former Union home minister P. Chidambaram, in July 2010, to Parliament that the National Investigation Agency (NIA) will probe the terrorist attacks on the Samjhauta Express and examine the conspiracy behind the attack, including the links of the accused in terrorist attacks at Malegaon (September 8, 2006), Mecca Masjid in Hyderabad (May 18, 2007) and at the Ajmer dargah (October 11, 2007). He had used the word Saffron terror.

Various such acts of terror in which these people have been involved have been coming to light from last ten years or so. In 2003, in Parbani, Jalna and Jalgaon districts of Maharashtra; in 2005, in Mau district of Uttar Pradesh; in 2006, in Nanded; in January 2008, at the RSS office in Tenkasi, Tirunelveli; in August 2008, in Kanpur etc. Few of the details of some of these acts are very revealing

1. On 6th April 2006 two Bajrang Dal workers died when making the bombs. The place where they died belonged to the RSS worker and saffron flag was hoisted atop the hose. There was also a board of Bajrang Dal Nanded Branch on the wall of the house.

2. In Thane on 4th June 2008, two Hindu Jagran Samiti workers were arrested for planting the bombs in the basement of Gadkari Rangayatan, due to which 7 people got injured. The same group was involved in the blasts in Vashi, Panvel also.

3. In Goa a bomb kept in a scooter went off on the eve of Divali (17th Oct 2009) in Margao. It killed Malgonda Patil and seriously injured Yogesh Naik. Another bomb was detected in Sancoale in a truck carrying 40 youth for Narkasur competition. Both the activists belonged to Sanatan Sanstha. The second aim of this blast was to create communal tension in Margao, which has a history of communal violence. This group takes inspiration from Savarkar (Hindu Mahasabha) and Hedgewar (RSS) and indoctrinates its members into hating Christians and Muslims.

4. On 24th August 2008 two Bajrang Dal activists died in Kanpur, while making bombs. The Kanpur zone IGP S.N. Singh stated that their investigations have revealed that this group was planning massive explosions all over the state.

5. Indian Express, 23 Oct 2008 reports that those involved in the bomb blast in Malegaon and Modasa (Sept 2008) had links with Akhil Bhartiya Vidyarthi Parishad. Similarly in Tenkasi, Tamil Nadu pipe bomb attack on RSS office (Jan.2008) was projected to have been done by Jehadi Muslims.

The common pattern of these acts of terror has been twofold. One, that in few of such cases the activists related to Bajrang Dal or fellow travellers were killed while making the bombs. Second these acts of terror were targeted to kill the Muslims, so these acts were organized at times when the Muslims congregations take place, at the time of namaz or festivals like Shab-e-Barat in Malegaon, or in Ajmer Sharif where they come in large numbers or Samjhauta express where the major number of travellers is Muslims.

While in the initial phase police authorities working under the prejudice that ‘all terrorists are Muslims’ misdirected their probe, the probe came on the proper track after the Malegaon blasts when the motor cycle of Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur, the former activist of Akhil Bhartiya Vidyarthi Parishad, a wing of RSS, came under the scanner and her links with many of those who have been named above and are currently in jail, came to the surface. These facts came to light due to the initiative and immaculate investigation done by the then chief of Maharashtra ATS, Hemant Karkare. Karkare pursued the investigation professionally putting together the threads due to which today most of them are in jails. While pursuing these investigations Karkare came under immense pressure from the politicians belonging to BJP and its close cousin, Shiv Sena. During this time Narendra Modi said that Hemant Karkare is an anti National, (Deshdrohi) and Bal Thackeray in his Saamana wrote that’ we spit on the face of Karkare.’ Later Karkare got killed in the Mumbai terror attack of 26/11, 2006.

The people involved in some way were associated to the affiliates of RSS or RSS itself. Mr. Singh, Home secretary has given some of the names from RSS stable who have been allegedly involved in acts of terror

1. Sunil Joshi (dead), he was an “activist of RSS” in dewas and Mhow from 1990s to 2003.
2. Sandeep Dange (absconding), He was “RSS pracharak” in Mhow, Indore, Uttarkashi and Sajhapur from 1990s to 2006.
3. Lokesh Sharma (arrested) He was RSS ‘nagar karyavahak’ in Deogarh.
4. Swami Assemanand (arrested), He was “associated with RSS wing Vanavashi Kalyan Parishad” in Dang, Gujarat in 1990s to 2007.
4. Rajender alias Samunder (arrested), He was “RSS Varg Vistarak.”
5. Mukesh Vasani (arrested), He was an “activist of RSS” in Godhra.
6. Devender Gupta (arrested), was a “RSS pracharak” in Mhow and Indore.
7. Chandrasekhar Leve (arrested), was a “RSS pracharak” in Shajhanpur in 2007.
8. Kamal Chouhan (arrested), was a “RSS activist.”
9. Ramji Kalsangra (absconding), was a “RSS associate”.
This is in addition to Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur, Swami Dayanand Pandey, Lt Col Prasad Shrikant Purohit, Retd Major Upadhyay, who have been close to them.

While some beans were spilled by many of these accused the whole picture was pieced together by Swami Aseemanand, when he decided to confess in front of the magistrate. In his confession Swami gave the details of the whole set up raised under his coordination and involving many RSS workers and their associates. The major reason for this whole planning as per him was to counter the Islamic terrorism as witnessed in Sankat Mochan temple etc. and second goal of theirs’ was to pave the path of Hindu nation.

The later investigation of ATS and now NIA has unearthed the linkages due to which these activists are cooling their heels in jails. Meanwhile in the wake of most of these terror blasts many a Muslim youth were arrested, some of whom were later released for the lack of any credible evidence. So this whole series of terrorists are Hindus. Does this then justify to label this type of terrorism as Hindu terrorism? By no means! Shinde is wrong to label this terrorism as Hindu terrorism.

Is the term ‘saffron terrorism’ correct? No way. This term was used by many including the then Home minister P. Chidambaram in the wake of the investigations done by Hemant Karkar in the case of Malegaon blasts. While one does not approve the term Hindu terrorism or saffron terrorism at all, one will like to see the background in which this term came to be used.

The RSS routinely adopts resolutions seeking to “curb Islamic terrorism with an iron hand”. The term Islamic terrorism was first coined by American media in the light of 9/11 act of terror. This was the first major attempt to label an act of terror with religion. This became the most popular word and all and sundry resorted to this word time and over again. This was a deliberate mischief by US to target the Muslims and thereby get legitimacy to launch attacks in the West Asia to control over the oil resources. In India also large section of media picked it up. RSS and its progeny in particular highlighted the religious nature of this terrorism, and the word Jehadi terrorism was the common one to be used. In a way associating terrorism with religion became a dominant norm and it became part of popular perception.

In this backdrop when the acts of terror done by many Hindus came to light, it somehow came to be labelled with prefix Hindu or Saffron. Term Islamic terrorism and Jehadi terrorism is as much wrong as the term Hindu or saffron terror. The right word for first one may be Al Qaeda type of terrorism and for the second, Hindutva terrorism. Here again using Hindutva terrorism is fraught with some misunderstanding. As such Hindutva is a politics aiming at creation of a Hindu nation but due to its containing the word Hindu in it, it is also taken to be a religion in popular understanding. So the dilemma for Shinde! How to label this group of terror deeds? Probably one will like to make it clear that it is Hindutva terrorism, it has nothing to do with Hindu religion and the difference between the terms Hindu (a religion) and Hindutva (a politics) needs to be made clear in popular parlance.

So it’s hypocritical to make the intense noise while the word Hindu-saffron terrorism is used. Same set of people are using the word Islamic terrorism, Jehadi terrorism and propagating that all terrorists are Muslims. One has to know that the phenomenon of terror has been promoted in the Madrassas specially set up by America in Pakistan to indoctrinate the Muslim youth and bring up Al Qaeda type formations. So why demonize Islam, Muslims and use the term Jehadi terrorism? Both such abuses of religion run parallel to each other.

What about the statement that training camps run by RSS and BJP? In all fairness one conceded that the training camps run by RSS have gone to give the training in rifles but the training centres of bomb making and use are not directly conducted by RSS-BJP. Surely these activities are done by those associated with RSS-BJP. One can’t take lightly the picture making rounds on social media, which shows Rajnath Singh and Shivrajsingh Chowhan with Sadhvi Pragya Thakur. One also can’t dismiss the fact that Lal Krishna Advani and Sushma Swaraj had gone to see the prime minister to plead the case of Pragya Singh Thakur in particular. One cant ignore that those running these training camps had or were associated with RSS in some way, actively at that time or in the past.

So all this protests and threats of BJP, threats to disrupt the session of Parliament are their usual political tactics and do not have any meaning, as their indirect or direct association with the terrorists is so much obvious. What Shinde is stating is factual but terminology is confused, and that’s not due to his own fault. We as a society have not been able to come to coin correct terminologies for different acts of terror anyway, so why get away with using the word Jehadi terrorism and haul Mr. Shinde to the coals for such a use of the term.?

Counter Current

The independence day of India is a black day for Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, and other minorities in India. Out of the numerous examples of extremist acts, a few of them are listed below.

At present, all minorities in India – Muslims, Christians, and Sikhs – are threatened by the government and by the Shiv Sena, R.S.S.; BJP and the congress party, Hindu extremist groups supported by the government. As the Sikh Holy Shrine was destroyed under the rule of Indira Gandhi, the Holy Muslim shrine, the Babri Musjid, was destroyed under the leadership of the former home minister L.K. Advani. There is no record of those who were killed during the attack, as no death certificates were issued. Dead bodies and those of the wounded were thrown into dirty refuge trucks and a mass cremation was held, of which the victims’ families had no knowledge of. Another example of the hostility minorities in India must face every day is that of Graham Stan, an Australian Christian missionary and his two children who were burnt alive in their car by Hindu extremists because they were not Hindu. These Hindu extremists who were back by the Indian government, watched the burning car with joy and clapped as the car and its innocent occupants went up in flames. A more recent event that had shocked the Christian community in India was the headless body of Ude Barik, a Christian priest, was found in the village of Muni Gureu in the state of Orissa and hundreds churches were burnt down in Orissa and other parts of the country. Even to this day; these types of ridiculous and senseless acts of violence are occurring, whether it be killings in police custody or rape of innocent women and girls, all under this corrupt Indian government. These examples of atrocities against the minority groups in India are just a few of many, however, they do provide us with substantiated proof that minorities are not safe in India.

Due to all the injustices that the minorities in India face, the United Front of Sikhs is committed to helping the Sikh people of India to establish their own state with peaceful resources. We ask for the Canadian government to step in and help eliminate the injustices facing Sikhs and all other minorities while still maintaining all the integrity and respect of the Canadian laws.

We make an appeal to the international community to take notice of the denial of human rights in India. We hope that with the help of the United Nations, Amnesty International, and Asia Watch, these tragedies will come to an end. In our attempt to help the minorities in India, we ask the Canadian government to stop all trade with India until the Indian government allows the United Nations, Amnesty International, and Asia Watch to freely enter India and investigate the human rights violations occurring throughout the country and set a date for referendum in Punjab and Kashmir.

Kashmir Diaspora Alliance

Last week I wrote about the challenges that President Obama faces in his second term as president. Part one of the series focused on the Afghanistan-Pakistan-Iran tangent. In part two of the series, it is important to look at the mammoth task Obama has to tackle in the mysterious, difficult and constantly evolving Middle East and North Africa (MENA).

Egypt is proving to be a constant point of concern for the re-elected president. The clumsy government set up by Morsi and the Brotherhood’s relentless attempts to grab power, a lack of serious opposition alternatives, an economic and security vacuum have all led to the country in deeper throes of turmoil. A constant sword of a military coup hangs over its tender systems of democracy, ever threatening to lead to state collapse and leave a question mark on Egypt’s fate.

In such a conflict-ridden scenario, the US has tried very hard to remain low-key. The White House has called for an end to violence on both sides and has encouraged dialogue to build consensus. You know, the standard diplomatic line when there is nothing else one can say. Surprisingly, however, Obama has insisted that the solution to the Egyptian crisis must come from Egyptians themselves. So, is Obama leaving Egyptians out in the cold to fend for themselves?

Most analysts have called for a greater US role in Egyptian politics, to strengthen its democracy and its fragile institutions. However, is this US support being called in the face of Mubarak nostalgia? Some experts believe so. In the light of that the current US policy of staying away from Egyptian politics is actually a good thing; it is strengthening Egypt’s democracy. The Obama administration has pushed the Egyptian military for a smooth transfer of power. The Egyptian military was further encouraged to remain true to the commitment of staying away from national politics and not to interfere in Egypt’s presidential elections. While the Bush administration had back away when Hamas came to power in Palestine, Obama did not shy away from Egypt when Islamists came to power after the elections. They, after all, came to power following popular vote.

This is not to say that the US wanted the Brotherhood to come to power. It is doubtful that Obama believes that the Muslim Brotherhood is made up of liberal, Israel-loving, free-market, evangelical democrats (and Israel loving is an important element in any American government’s foreign policy). While the Muslim Brotherhood has performed terribly since the elections, fact remains that it did come to power through these very elections. It would be interesting to see the future of the Brotherhood in Egypt’s democratic system. While the previous governments have been authoritarian in nature, this would be the first time a government could be held accountable by the people at the next polls.

So what alternatives does the Obama administration have except to pursue the current policy with Egypt? Remain distant from the internal strife in Egyptian politics and at the same time provide bi-lateral support to the Brotherhood to consolidate itself fully for the next few years that it is in power. It must be remembered that economic crisis fuels the internal turmoil in Egypt. Because it is doubtful that the Obama administration is overlooking that aspect, the Obama administration would do well to encourage a World Bank/IMF-Egypt agreement on aid-for-governance.

Another mammoth task that the second Obama administration has to take into account is the Israeli tangent. Historically, everyone knows how important the United States’ support has been for Israel. The US was among the few supporters Israel had in the observer-state vote in the UN for Palestine. In the aftermath of that vote, Israel has faced an increased isolation from most world leaders, including Germany, which showed that the holocaust guilt was not enough for the Israeli state to get what it wants from the UN.

Obama, however, has played a different game than most of his European counterparts. Over the last four years, Obama has provided increased security assistance to the Jewish state and over 10 billion dollars in aid. This is at least 20 percent more aid than what six dozen other US aid recipients receive. Add to this is the increased military strengthening Israel has gotten through consultations with the United States on arms sales to the region, operational cooperation and counter terrorism capabilities. Furthermore, Israel has been provided with advanced technology by the Obama administration, such as a fifth-generation stealth Joint Strike Fighter to which no other country in the Middle East has access.

Obama has also deepened Israeli consultations on its “security concerns” from the Gaza Strip, Lebanon, Syria and Iran. The US president also visited victims of Palestinian rocket attacks and pledged support. They weren’t just words, Obama then proceeded to provide Israel with Iron Dome, an anti-rocket system that saved hundreds of Israeli lives over the past year alone.

So Obama has been great for Israel. Some would say much greater than several US presidents. It is difficult to see this stance on Israel changing in his second term. Even when there was severe turmoil in the Arab world, the US president made it clear to Egyptian politicians that US aid to Egypt was conditional upon Egypt remaining committed to the peace treaty with Israel. When an angry mob stormed the Israeli Embassy in Cairo last September, Obama personally and directly intervened with Egypt’s military to ensure the safety of Israeli diplomats.

Colin Kahl, then, rightly said, “Obama has consistently defended Israel at the United Nations, rejecting the unbalanced Goldstone report, defending Israel over the Gaza flotilla incident with Turkey, and blocking Palestinian attempts to circumvent direct negotiations with Israel and impose an outcome through early recognition of statehood. In doing so, Obama has repeatedly shown his willingness to shield Israelis from international efforts aimed at isolating and delegitimizing the Jewish state.”

This clearly puts into context US vehement opposition to Iran’s nuclear programme – it is the biggest threat to Israel itself. So while the Obama administration continues its love affair with Israel, peace with Iran is not possible. Egypt will remain bound by its treaty and the terms for its stance with Israel may just be dictated from Washington itself.

Obama’s four more in foreign policy have been well thought out for all its strategic interests. The sad part is, these strategic interests are only for the Americans, even if it seems otherwise.

By Aima Khosa
Spearhead Research