Pakistan has proof of '3 Indian Kasabs' in Baluchistan

• 
  July 28, 2009
  Why is Prime Minister Manmohan Singh [ Images ] under fire in India, becoming the first Indian prime minister to be blamed by the Opposition and the media for surrendering to Pakistan in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt [ Images ], a fortnight ago?
  Many Indians are not happy over the reference to Baluchistan in the joint statement released in Sharm El Sheikh after the meeting between the Indian and Pakistani prime ministers. Some Indians think Dr Singh stabbed the nation in the back by accepting India's interference in Baluchistan. There are reports that the Pakistani prime minister pressurised Dr Singh in Sharm El Sheikh by handing over a dossier containing proof of alleged Indian cross-border terrorism in Baluchistan, and that was how the latter was forced to accept the mention of Baluchistan in the joint statement.
  I was present in Sharm El Shekh. I remember that many Indian journalists were shocked after reading the joint statement. They started asking me why Baluchistan was mentioned in the statement at all. In fact, many of them were not aware, like many ordinary Indians, of what is going on in Baluchistan. Within a few hours I started receiving phone calls from many Indian television channels asking me what was the evidence shown by Pakistan to Dr Singh. The fact is, while the Pakistani prime minister did mention Baluchistan to Dr Singh, he never handed over any dossier.
  But the situation in Baluchistan came under detailed discussion during the first meeting of the foreign secretaries in the evening of July 14 in Sharm El Sheikh, which took place two days before the meeting between Dr Singh and Yousaf Raza Gilani. Pakistani Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir told Shiv Shankar Menon [ Images ] that India must delink the talks from terrorism, otherwise Pakistan will be forced to produce at least "three Indian Ajmal Kasabs" before the international media, who were directly or indirectly part of the terrorist activities in Baluchistan, and Pakistan will easily establish that the Indian consulate in the Afghan city of Kandahar was actually a control room for the terrorist activities organised by the separatist Baluchistan Liberation Army.
  These three Indian nationals were arrested In Pakistan over the last few weeks and, according to Pakistani officials, they have undeniable evidence of Indians links with Baluch militants.
  Bashir told Menon that both Pakistan and India cannot afford a blame game right now. If Pakistan comes out with evidence that Indians are responsible for attacking Chinese engineers in the port city of Gwadar in 2004 it may damage India's credibility, but it will surely fan greater anti-India feelings in Pakistan which will ultimately be to the benefit of extremist forces. This is why Pakistani authorities are very careful in exposing the alleged Indian involvement in Baluchistan.
  After all, this sort of blame game will only help those extremist forces who successfully organised attacks in Mumbai [ Images ] on November 26, 2008, just to derail the India-Pakistan peace process.
  Secondly, it will also harm relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan. The United States does not want any tension between Islamabad [ Images ] and Kabul at this stage because NATO forces are trying their best to conduct a presidential election in Afghanistan in the coming weeks.
  Thirdly, the Pakistani Peoples Party-led coalition government is aware that Baluchistan is not a serious dispute like Jammu and Kashmir [ Images ], it's a problem of provincial rights, and instead of internationalising the problem Islamabad should address the problem realistically. Islamabad cannot get away by simply blaming India for the unrest in Baluchistan. Behind the scene talks with many Baluch militants are going on, and some good news may come out soon in this regard.
  Pakistan is making noises against the alleged Indian involvement in Baluch insurgency in a very careful, well-calculated and "limited manner". Recently a prominent US magazine, Foreign Affairs, in its March 2009 edition, published the report of a roundtable discussion on the causes of instability in Pakistan. Christine Fair of Rand Corporation is reported to have said in that discussion that 'having visited the Indian mission in Zahedan, Iran, I can assure you they are not issuing visas as the main activity. Indian officials have told me privately that they are pumping money into Baluchistan'.
  This allegation came from a very credible American scholar who recently visited the Indian consulate in Zahedan. Now, where is Zahedan? It is the capital of the Irani province of Sistan-o-Baluchistan bordering Pakistan. More than two million Baluchis live on the Iranian side of Baluchistan. Iran is building a big port, Chabahar, in the same area with active help from India. Top Iranian leaders have alleged many times that the Central Intelligence Agency is supporting Iranian Baluchis to destabilise the Islamic Republic. The famous American journalist Seymour Hersh admitted in July 2008 that the George Bush [ Images ] administration gave millions of dollars to a separatist Iranian group, Jandallah, which is responsible for the violence on the Iranian side of Baluchistan.
  China's presence in Pakistani Baluchistan is also a problem for the US administration. The Chinese are accused of using Gwadar as a listening post for monitoring US military activities in the Persian Gulf. If Pakistan plays the India card in Baluchistan, many anti-US forces in Pakistan will ask why it is silent over the CIA's role in Baluchistan whereby it is using Jandallah against Iran.
  Keeping in view the sensitivity of the problem, it is difficult for India to openly support the Baluch insurgency because it may harm her relations with Iran. If the Indians will come out openly in support of the BLA, anti-Indian elements in Pakistan will quickly bracket New Delhi [ Images ] with the alleged Great Game of the US against Iran.
  We must know that Baluchis are Kurds of South Asia. Kurds are divided in Iran, Turkey and Iraq while the Baluchis are divided in Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan. Separatist groups in Pakistan and Iran want the unification of Baluch areas which is not acceptable to both the countries. Baluchistan has huge quantities of natural gas and unexplored oil reserves. It is the largest province in Pakistan in terms of area, covering almost 48 pc of the country while its population is only 5 pc of Pakistan's. It is a tribal society, and is the most underdeveloped province in Pakistan.
  The first military operation in Baluchistan was launched by General Ayub Khan in the late '50s. The second one was launched in 1974 when Iraq tried to destabilise Iranian Baluchistan with the help of pro-Soviet Afghan ruler Sardar Daoud in collaboration with some Pakistani Baluch leaders. Daoud tried to exploit the slogan of Independent Baluchistan on one side and Pashtunistan on the other. Afghanistan's interference in Pakistan forced the then prime minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto to use Ahmad Shah Masood and Gulbadin Hekmatyar against Kabul, and these two Afghan rebels became the guest of Pakistani security forces for the first time in 1975. Later on they were used by General Zia against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.
  Musharraf gave the Gwadar port city to the Chinese for development in 2003, which was the beginning of a new problem. Three Chinese engineers were killed and nine were injured on May 3, 2004, in a remote-controlled car bomb attack. Two months after that incident, Pakistan claimed on July 2 for the first time that India was involved in the blast. Local Baluchis were not happy over the employment of many non-Baluchis in the main development projects of their province. They also wanted a fairer share of royalties generated by the production of natural gas in their province. Instead of addressing their grievances, the Musharraf regime launched a third military operation against them in 2005, which further aggravated the situation.
  Why must Indians discuss Baluchistan with Pakistan? Because Baluchistan will be the route of at least two multinational gas pipeline projects. One will come from Turkmenistan to Pakistan via Afghanistan; the other will come from Iran to Pakistan. India could be a beneficiary of both the pipelines. These two pipelines could be extended from Multan to New Delhi. I think there is no harm in India discussing Baluchistan with Pakistan because stability in Baluchistan will ultimately benefit India.
  Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, China and India should join hands with each other, stop proxy wars in Kashmir and Baluchistan as soon as possible, and thus they can change the fate of the whole region.
  Hamid Mir is the Executive Editor of Geo TV in Islamabad and can be contacted at :hamid.mir@geo.tv
  
  http://news.rediff.com/special/2009/jul/28/hamid-mir-on-the-real-reason-why-india-agreed-to-discuss-baluchistan.htm
  
  With Islamic terrorism sponsored by ISI having achieved many targets in India over the last two decades, particularly in Kashmir, it would be puerile to imagine that RAW was not plotting to pay back in the same coin and Pakistan's fault lines weren't a big secret. Moreover, as part of its declared counter-insurgency, Indian military intelligence co-opted extremist Hindu forces to halt a free run of terrorism in India by Pakistan in the name of Islam. Obviously Col. Purohit and the Sadhvi were part of the counter insurgency programme. However, elements in the Congress with an anti-Hindu agenda do not want a robust Indian response. They first came up with the theory of Hindu terrorism and compromised the role of Col. Purohit and others in India's counter-insurgency operation and now they have included Baluchistan in a joint-declaration with Pakistan, thereby further sabotaging India's counter-insurgency attempts. The traitors in the Congress must be exposed before they totally sell out India's interests to anti-Hindu forces.

'Ensure no place of worship in public places'

Updated on Friday, July 31, 2009, 14:39 IST
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday asked the Centre to ensure that no place of worship is constructed in public places.
The apex court asked Solicitor General Gopal Subramanium to file an affidavit in this regard within four weeks. "The Solicitor General will file an affidavit to ensure that no temple, church, mosque or gurudwara is constructed on a public street or a public space," a Bench comprising Justices Dalveer Bhandari and M K Sharma said. The direction to the Centre came during the hearing of the petition challenging the Gujarat High Court order of 2006 by which the authorities in Ahmedabad were directed to demolish all illegal structures including places of worship on public roads. The High Court order was later stayed by the apex court. During the hearing, the Bench said as far as existing religious institutions are concerned it can understand that demolishing them will create law and order problem but the Centre must ensure that no religious places comes up in future in public places. The Bench said even if a single institution is put up on public place, the officers concerned would be suitably punished. Subramanium said that the Centre will have discussions with all states and try to reach a consensus on this issue. The Bench posted the matter for further hearing on September 29. Bureau Report

This is a reasonable order by the SC. This should also apply to building of memorials of political leaders in public places. Except for Mahatma Gandhi's memorial in the capital, because the Mahatma was unique, all the other memorials, including those of the Nehru family and former PMs should be shifted to a common memorial at a single place and existing memorial sites should be converted to places of public utility.

http://www.zeenews.com/news551758.html

Muslims unwelcome? Yes, says Emraan Hashmi

New Delhi: Accusing a Mumbai housing society of religious profiling and discrimination, actor Emraan Hashmi on Friday said that he never though he would have to give a “character certificate” to buy a house.
Hashmi tried buying an apartment in Mumbai’s posh Pali Hill locality but the actor believes the housing society is discriminating against him because he is a Muslim. He has filed a complaint with the State Minorities' Commission, demanding action against the housing society’s members.
“It is a very tricky situation. Nobody will tell you on your face that you will not be given a flat because you are Muslim. They did not tell me openly but it was very evident,” Hashmi said.
“It is a basic issue of me being Muslim. If as a celebrity I am facing such problem one can easily understand the problem faced by the common man,” he added.
Addressing a press conference in Mumbai along with filmmaker Mahesh Bhatt, Hashmi said, “I never thought that I had to get a character certificate. I want to know why I am being not being given a NOC (no objection certificate).”
Hashmi explained how the society members were not forthcoming with his request to buy an apartment. “They delayed the NOC for five days and eventually I got to know that they don’t want me to get a membership in that society,” he said.
“There are lots of other places like Bandra where brokers say they don’t approach societies because of biases,” he added.
The actor also alleged that to dodge the issue now many are saying that “since I am a serial kisser in the movies so I will be a bad influence to the children around me.”
To which Mahesh Bhatt said, “In that building many Bollywood actors live. Some have done negative roles then how come they have been allowed to stay there?”
Meanwhile, Maharashtra Minorities Commission Vice-Chairman Abraham Mathai said the Commission is sending a notice to the housing society.
“Emraan Hashmi has complained that the building society is refusing to give him NOC to complete the transaction of the deal to buy the flat. He has given Rs 1 lakh as token money. Building society refuses to give NOC because he is a Muslim. He has made a written complaint. We are sending a notice to the society chairman. We will ask them to explain their stand. No such complaint filed ever,” Mathai said.

I think it should be left to housing societies to decide who they may want as members. If they decide not to have a member by virtue of his or her religion, social standing, cultural background or whatever else, so be it. A case would arise only if a prospective member was kept out by categorizing him wrongly. After all, we have exclusive colonies for Parsis, don't we? And we have reservations based on caste, region, language and religion. The Indian constitution of course is against discrimination between citizens on any ground. But the constitution itself gives protection to reservations. This dichotomy must be removed before attempting to break down segregation barriers. All these segregations, under one name or the other, would no doubt prove detrimental to the nation in the long run. Therefore let us start a revolution in social equality by getting rid of constitutional protection for reservations before pouncing on isolated housing societies who may deny admissions to categories of people who they may fear may not be in rhythm with their preferred values of living.

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/muslims-unwelcome-yes-says-emraan-hashmi/98289-8.html

Nothing more to prove on Mumbai attacks, says Chidambaram

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

New Delhi: Unhappy over Pakistan's repeated claim about lack of evidence to prosecute Jamaat-ud Dawa chief Hafiz Saeed, India said it should not ask any more questions as enough proof has been provided in the dossiers on Mumbai attacks. "They should not ask any more questions. Everything is contained in the dossier," Home Minister P Chidambaram told reporters here when asked to comment on Pakistan's claim that it does not have evidence to prosecute Saeed, whom India has identified as prime accused in Mumbai attacks. "It has been a little tiresome," he said while referring to Pakistan's repeated claim that it does not have proof to prosecute Saeed and it has been seeking it from India. Chidambaram said Pakistan has "enough evidence to prosecute the perpetrators... They should get on with their job." Pakistan's Interior Minister Rahman Malik said in an interview yesterday, "We do not have any proof against Hafiz Saeed. We have demanded and we are demanding from India that if you have proof, give (it to) us, but do not do propaganda." Contending that Pakistan cannot "arrest our citizen" on the basis of "hearsay", Malik had said "If New Delhi wants some credible action, it needs to provide substantial evidence."Business Standard

Venu10
#1
Wednesday, 29 July 2009 03:52:28
Pakistan is contemptuous of India. Whatever India says will never be taken seriously by them. They will carry on with a farce case, using it to seek extradition of Mohammad Kasab. Then they will seek to embarrass India on the Samjutha Express blast, which is a self-inflicted wound by India gifted by the Congress to paint Hindutva forces in a corner. Pakistan needs to be told clearly that we are not going to put up with its antics any longer and Congress needs to understand that its political compulsions should not put the nation in a bind.


http://news.in.msn.com/national/article.aspx?cp-documentid=3116857

CAG's indictment: Is it time for Metro Man to go?

1-2 of 2
PreviousNext
K.Venugopal
#1
Sunday, 19 July 2009 22:42:15
This article seems to be a motivated one by a private industry hack on behalf of people who want to get their fingers in every pie. Mr. Sreedharan has proved that big money is not the only motive for doing a good job. He is a challenge to the avaricious private industry.
Ranjith Mohan.K.G
#2
Sunday, 19 July 2009 22:39:10
Please give credits to a man who has done incredible things defying red tapes and political pressures. Do you think just because there is supervision and government subsidies, projects will come up in India? I have seen many roads and over bridges left halfway because there are too many people involved in it. I think every projects that come up in India should have someone like Mr. Sreedharan on top to get it completed. I don't think just because there is supervision and accountability, something incredible will happen. You need someone like him to make it happen. After Mr. Sreedharan, someone else will come out to head projects like this. Not all are like Sreedharan. Agree. But not all are corrupt too.

http://news.in.msn.com/national/article.aspx?cp-documentid=3112218&ucid=156933#uc2Lst156933

2003 Mumbai blasts: All accused convicted under POTA

Monday, July 27, 2009
Mumbai: A special Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) court on Monday convicted all three accused in the 2003 twin blasts in Gateway of India and Zaveri Bazaar.The quantum of punishment will be pronounced on August 4.The accused - Haneef Sayyed (46), an auto driver, his wife Fahmeeda (43) and Ashrat Ansari (32) – are convicted under Prevention of Terrorism Act for murder and criminal conspiracy.On August 25, 2003, two bombs left in taxis exploded in south Mumbai - the Gateway of India and Zaveri Bazaar in the busy Kalbadevi area, killing 52 people and wounding more than a hundred others.The attacks were carried out to "avenge" the deaths of Muslims during the 2002 Gujarat riots.Chronology
Following is the chronology of the 2003 twin blasts at Gateway of India and Zaveri Bazaar:August 25, 2003: Blasts at Zaveri Bazaar and Gateway of India in south Mumbai in which 52 killed and 100 injured.August 31, 2003: Three accused Ashrat Ansari (32), Hanif Sayed (46) and his wife Fehmida Sayed (43) arrested.October 1, 2003: Two more accused, Mohammed Ansari Ladoowala and Mohammed Hasan Batterywala, held.October 2, 2003: Another accused Zaheer Patel (name changed as he later became approver in case) arrested.February 5, 2004: Chargesheet filed against six accused in the case in Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) court for Gateway of India and Zaveri Bazaar blasts. Accused also alleged to have been involved in placing an unexploded bomb in a bus at SEEPZ in suburban Andheri in December 2, 2002 and placing bomb in bus at Ghatkopar in July 28 (rpt) 28, 2003 in which two persons were killed.May 5, 2004: Patel declared approver and pardoned by POTA court.
June 20, 2004: Charges framed by court against five accused.September 2, 2004: Trial commences.December 2008: Ladoowala and Batterywala discharged from the case by POTA court after Supreme Court upholds POTA review committee report stating no case against them.July 27, 2009: Three accused Ashrat Ansari, Hanif Sayed and his wife Fehmida Sayed convicted by special POTA court under sections of IPC, POTA, Explosives Act, Explosive Substances Act. Court says arguments on quantum of sentence to be heard on August 4. Source: ANI, PTI
PreviousNext
Venu10
#1
Monday, 27 July 2009 05:01:19
Is it because it was tried under POTA that there has been a conviction? Would they be bailed out because POTA no longer applies now?

Baba Ramdev to file case in SC against Homosexuality freedom

http://news.in.msn.com/national/article.aspx?cp-documentid=3070357