Tuesday, 31 December 2013

Watch live TV debate: State of Jammu and Kashmir and role of India and Pakistan, 23/12/13,

Watch live TV debate: State of Jammu and Kashmir and role of India and Pakistan, 23/12/13, part 1& 2
Part 1
Part2

Sunday, 29 December 2013

Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples

Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples

Adopted by General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960


The General Assembly,

Mindful of the determination proclaimed by the peoples of the world in the Charter of the United Nations to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Conscious of the need for the creation of conditions of stability and well-being and peaceful and friendly relations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples, and of universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion,

Recognizing the passionate yearning for freedom in all dependent peoples and the decisive role of such peoples in the attainment of their independence,

A ware of the increasing conflicts resulting from the denial of or impediments in the way of the freedom of such peoples, which constitute a serious threat to world peace,

Considering the important role of the United Nations in assisting the movement for independence in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories,

Recognizing that the peoples of the world ardently desire the end of colonialism in all its manifestations,

Convinced that the continued existence of colonialism prevents the development of international economic co-operation, impedes the social, cultural and economic development of dependent peoples and militates against the United Nations ideal of universal peace,

Affirming that peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law,

Believing that the process of liberation is irresistible and irreversible and that, in order to avoid serious crises, an end must be put to colonialism and all practices of segregation and discrimination associated therewith,

Welcoming the emergence in recent years of a large number of dependent territories into freedom and independence, and recognizing the increasingly powerful trends towards freedom in such territories which have not yet attained independence,

Convinced that all peoples have an inalienable right to complete freedom, the exercise of their sovereignty and the integrity of their national territory,

Solemnly proclaims the necessity of bringing to a speedy and unconditional end colonialism in all its forms and manifestations;

And to this end Declares that:

1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.

2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.

5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.

6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

7. All States shall observe faithfully and strictly the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the present Declaration on the basis of equality, non-interference in the internal affairs of all States, and respect for the sovereign rights of all peoples and their territorial integrity.

Saturday, 28 December 2013

Interesting debate on Jihad

Interesting debate on Jihad; Molana Sb says people who r sent to JK by ISI and get killed are not shaheed. Those who r fighting for accession to Pakistan are not shaheed; those who are fighting to get water for Pakistan are not shaheed etc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsgCb-0INfE

Friday, 27 December 2013

Afghan Mujahideen And Jammu and Kashmir How Real Is The Threat? Dr Suba Chandran

Afghan Mujahideen And Jammu and Kashmir How Real Is The Threat? Dr Suba Chandran

Location of Jammu and Kashmir in India
LOCATION OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR IN INDIA

December 27, 2013
By D Suba Chandran
There has been a serious concern, at times even a threat perception, that after the American withdrawal in 2014, the Afghan mujahideen would enter into J&K, as they did after the Soviet withdrawal in 1989. How real is the threat? How relevant is the previous example to the contemporary situation in Afghanistan, Pakistan and J&K? Does the contemporary political and security situation in these three regions along with the attention of international community provide a space conducive for the Afghan mujahideen to enter (on their own) or being pushed (by Pakistan) into Kashmir?
Much of the Afghan mujahideen threat perception to J&K emanates from a perception that Afghanistan would unravel after 2014. In fact, it was the instability within Afghanistan in the early 1990s after the Soviet withdrawal in 1989, which made the country unstable. This instability across the Durand Line also left Pakistan with a huge refugee population including a substantial mujahideen residue. A section within the Pakistani Establishment and ISI saw this as an opportunity to support the militant struggle taking roots at that time in J&K in the early 1990s.
It was the opportunist use and abuse of the Afghans within Pakistan by the Establishment and its ISI which resulted in J&K witnessing the mujahideen. During that time, neither the mujahideen were infused with a jihadi spirit to establish a caliphate all over the region, nor did they want to fight for the cause of an independent Kashmir. They were used and abused by the Pakistani Establishment as mercenaries.
In retrospect, it would also appear that the pumping of Afghan mujahideen into J&K did not support what Pakistan wanted to do; in fact, it became counterproductive, as there was at that time and in fact even today a substantial section within J&K that would abhor what the Afghan mujahideen did to the social fabric at that time.
Second, is Afghanistan likely to be unstable after the withdrawal of international security forces (ISAF) after 2014? In this context, there is a mis-percpetion or cynicism that Afghanistan would collapse after the American withdrawal. Such a perception does not reflect the improved situation at the ground level. Today the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) are much better trained and equipped than they were in the early 1990s. In fact, this is the best force that Afghanistan could have had in the recent decade in terms of numbers, training, equipment and more importantly motivation.
On the other hand, ever since their inception, the Taliban today is perhaps at its weakest position in terms of numbers, second tier leadership, infrastructural support and motivation. Unlike the 1990s, there is no Taliban wave, that could sweep province after province. In fact, the Taliban is using suicide attacks and IEDs as a major strategy against the ANSF, rather than any coordinated conventional offensive. Clearly, the Taliban is on a defensive and is unlikely to run over the ANSF militarily after 2014.
The above does not mean the ANSF would succeed to completely remove the presence of Taliban from the Afghan soil. Taliban would still remain an important threat for Karzai and any future President; but this threat from the Taliban to the government in Kabul may not be as grave as it was in the 1990s. Afghanistan is likely to witness an ugly stability and not an all out civil war between every factions.
Third, the situation within Pakistan, and the relationship between the Establishment and Afghan militants are not the same today, as it was in the early 1990s. Thanks to the American support to Pakistan as a frontline state in the 1980s, there was an enormous clout that Islamabad and Rawalpindi had over the Afghan fighters across the Durand Line. Thanks to the infrastructural and monetary support, the Afghan mujahideen, especially the pashtuns were totally at the mercy of Pakistan in fighting the soviet troops. Pakistan could influence multiple pashtun factions, arm them and provide them with sufficient financial support against the Soviet troops in the 1980s. Except perhaps Ahmed Shah Massoud, the entire Afghan mujahideen leadership was based in Pakistan.
Today, the situation for Pakistan is totally different. The TTP, primarily led by the pashtun fighters from the Federally Administered Tribal Agencies (FATA) is waging a violent onslaught against the Pakistan Establishment. Except for the Haqqani network, the ISI seems to have lost its hold over the pashtun Taliban. Even the links between Mullah Omar and Pakistan seems to be in a delicate balance, though the former is believed to station in Quetta.
If Pakistan has to divert the Afghan mujahideen into J&K after 2014, which of the above faction is going to be used as a fodder to Islamabad’s cause? Will TTP be ready to fight Pakistan’s cause in J&K, when the group under its new leader Mullah Fazlullah is even more hostile to the Establishment? Will Pakistan push the Quetta Shura and Haqqani network after 2014 into Kashmir? Both these factions are likely to be pinned down in fighting the ANSF, rather than shifting to another region, especially J&K. Neither the Quetta Shura nor the Haqqani network is buoyed with a jihadi fervour to import their brand of Islam in the rest of world; rather, they would be keen to fight within Afghanistan.
If Pakistan wants to use non-State actors, it would rather make use of the Lashkar network, rather than the Afghan mujahideen. The militant threat to J&K would come from Pakistan rather than Afghanistan.
Finally, is there a space within J&K, that would accommodate Afghan mujahideen as a strategy? To a large extent, there seems to be a political approach, even if it means use of pressure and violence in the form of hartals and stone pelting, rather than any predominant support for militancy. The society within J&K does not seem to be inclined to allow militancy to take over and change the existing discourse vis-a-vis the State. Certainly, it is not look for any external support from the Afghan Mujahideen.
Based on the above, it appears that the threat from Afghan Mujahideen to J&K is exaggerated and does not support the ground reality in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Kashmir. Perhaps, such a threat perception is based rather on history, than on the present regional environment. Or, perhaps there are other reasons to project such a threat. Whatever may be the reasons for the threat perceptions, let it not derail the actual issues at the ground level demanding real time response.
D Suba Chandran

Director, IPCS
By arrangement with Rising Kashmir


Zaid hamid says pakistan never fight against india over kashmir in future only for water..

Zaid hamid says pakistan never fight against india over kashmir in future
only for water... kashmiri mujahideen blast dams for us in indian (o k p) kashmir

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVKGlbXT9pU

Thursday, 26 December 2013

Jihad Is Muslim’s Battle to Become Better; but Terrorism Is Always Directed Against Innocent Civilians

Jihad Is Muslim’s Battle to Become Better; but Terrorism Is Always Directed Against Innocent Civilians

By M Khan Chishti
December 23, 2013

Jihad is one of the pillars of Islam that elucidates Muslims’ obligation towards the religion whereas terrorism takes into account ferocious tactics employed by an individual or a group to impart feelings of scare and terror amongst wide-ranging audience. Nowadays, the notion of terrorism has been associated with Jihad by extremists, who attempt to corroborate their activities with Jihad. Abysmal acts orchestrated by terrorists and their misinterpretation of Islamic teachings have distorted the factual image of Islam, resultantly making it imperative to discuss the discrimination between Jihad and terrorism.

 The word Jihad stems from the Arabic language which means “to strive”. As per Islam, Jihad is epitomized as the struggle to defend one’s religion, country, family, or hoard a human life. Jihad can even be one’s battle against his personal tribulations to make himself a better human being. There is no reference in Islam where the term Jihad is used to justify the killing of innocent people or impairment to their possessions. However, contrary to Jihad, terrorism is always directed against innocent civilians. Terrorism is basically the illicit use of force or violence by a person or an organised group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments often for ideological or political reasons. The sole purpose of terrorism is to cause adequate impairment, pain and suffering to others by making them feel frightened and apprehensive.
 A statement issued by a group of scholars affiliated to the Muslim World League defined terrorism as an act of hostility or intimidation that is designed to terrorise people or endanger their lives that is strictly forbidden in Islam. They also affirmed that damaging public or private facilities and endangering natural resources is equally an act of terror. Religious scholars also prohibited the killing of non-combatants and innocent women, children and elderly men as well as the fighters who surrender. Moreover, it has been interpreted unanimously in every age and by all schools of thought that no one can compel anybody to convert from one faith to another or impose his version of Islam upon others. This is the very creed of Islam.

 As far as Holy Quran is concerned, it delineates the essential principle of preaching in the famous verse of Surah Baqura “Let there be no compulsion in religion” (2:256). It is not only replete in the Holy Quran but has so abundantly been displayed by the Holy Prophet (PBUH) and the four caliphs that it is irrefutable for any Muslim to chastise others merely for their divergent views on religion. The Holy Prophet (PBUH) was time and again reminded in the Surah Al Shura in Holy Quran that “If they then turn we did not send you as a supervisor, there is no responsibility upon you but to preach” (42:48).

Islam is the religion of peace and harmony that teaches virtues of goodness and humanity. It never tolerates unprovoked aggression as Quran strictly prohibits Muslims from commencing hostilities, embarking on any act of belligerence, violating the rights of others or harming the innocents. Even, hurting or destroying animals or trees is forbidden in Islam. The entire Quran gives an overwhelming message of optimism, faith and harmony to human beings. It repeatedly urges clemency, restraint and warns believers not to transgress or become oppressors as Allah says in Quran: “If anyone slays a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew all people. And if anyone saves a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all people” (5:32).

 Nevertheless, the terrorists exploit the religious association of Muslims to substantiate their fierce activities as ‘Jihad’. Sermons and Fatwas of religious scholars are also used to provoke anti-Western sentiments of Muslims to intense their aversion against the West and non-Muslims. In addition, these terrorists proclaim that any Muslim who does not wage Jihad or rejects the ideology of Mujahideen deserves to be eliminated or penalised. Muslims supporting global war against terrorism, whether they are government officials or security personnel, are portrayed as infidels. Resultantly, Muslims with diminutive understanding of Jihad get motivated to render their physical and material support to terrorist groups. These groups misinterpret verses from the Holy Quran, quote them out of context as bait for the less-knowledged and under-privileged Muslim youth to indoctrinate them for carrying out suicide bombing that is absolutely against the teachings of Islam as Allah says in Quran:-”O ye who believe, do not kill yourselves, for truly Allah has been to you Most Merciful. If anyone does so in rancour and injustice, soon shall We cast him into the Fire” (4:29-30).

The discussion leads to a logical conclusion that terrorists today who are waging war in the name of Jihad will be questioned in their graves. Groups like Al-Qaeda and Taliban are undoubtedly terrorists of the present era, who are pursuing their political and personal agendas for which they are declaring their brutal and inhuman terrorist activities as Jihad.

The mere aim of these vicious groups is to make money and trade barbarism under the garb of a holy war. Terrorism and extremism is a curse and cancer for the society. That is precisely why almost all the Muslim governments have joined hands to wipe out this menace.

All segments of the society are required to work in collaboration to deny recruitment for terrorist organisations. Renowned religious scholars should be involved to launch anti-extremism campaigns for preaching the correct teachings of Islam and shunning the radical ideology of terrorists. Anti-extremism campaigns should be financed by international community to thwart the youth from accepting militants’ beliefs.

Intelligentsia and the media should devise a comprehensive strategy aimed at rejecting terrorism in all its forms and manifestation, which would help in creating a homogenous stance among the people and persuading them to deny moral and material support to the terrorists.

Source: http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-2-222014-Jihad-and-terrorism:-Striking-a-difference


Droning the future, Aitab Siddique

Droning the future, Aitab Siddique

 Military drones have proven their effectiveness for the US by undertaking intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) operations in Pakistan and Afghanistan enabling the US to avoid placing American boots in the most dangerous areas. While different drone programmes have been in the making since the early 90s, in 1995, the Predator range became the first of these to become operational. 

During 2013 important technological advancements took place in the US: unmanned, ground-controlled F16 jet fighters have been successfully tested; the X-47B UCAS a super drone has been launch tested. The latter is completely pre-mission programmed so once it takes off, it undertakes the entire mission independently without any human control or intervention from the ground. The development of these super drones has completely changed the war equation in favour of the US.

The X-47Bs super drone’s military capabilities are much better than the fighter jets, with a range of 2100 nautical miles (NM) compared to 1740NM for F16s and only around 998NM for the RQ1 Predator (said to be operating around Pakistan’s tribal areas). Most importantly, these super drones can be refuelled mid-air which greatly increases their range; they can be launched from and land on a moving aircraft carrier ship.

The US will no longer will need allies willing to host its drones and constrained by diplomatic issues. As instruments of war go, the US has now developed vastly advanced drone weaponry that can avoid detection and carry out missions even when confronted with air defence systems based in the Pacific and other regions, far more technologically advanced than those the US faces in Pakistani and Afghan territory.

US military planners are using technology to minimise the loss of their military personnel making the war as robotic as possible. This illustrates the huge value the American government places on the lives of its soldiers and on an American life. The overall cost of the programme is around US$813 million; these super drones will be fully operational by 2020 and will enable the US to be prepared for its envisioned prolonged presence in Afghanistan and the borders of Pakistan’s tribal areas over the next 10 years.

Now the question many Pakistanis are asking is: are any areas of the country out of the drones’ range? Sadly, the answer is no. Since the appointment of Mullah Fazlullah as chief of the TTP and his deputy Khalid Haqqani – both residents of the settled KP areas – the situation has deteriorated. Their power base is built around Swat, Hangu, Tirah Valley and Swabi, areas situated deep in Pakistani territory, and now considered areas of interest for US drones. 

Indeed, a recent drone strike took place in the town of Hangu. Predictably, this resulted in mass protests, rallies and suspension of Nato supplies to Afghanistan. The evolving situation puts the Pakistani government in a very difficult position as the repeated drone attacks imply it is incapable of protecting its sovereignty.

Drone strikes are an important part of the pre-emptive strike policy devised by the Bush administration. On the whole, this policy has had disastrous consequences for the world. Iraq, a monumental mistake, is an outcome of this very policy. The policy has failed in Pakistan, Afghanistan and in Yemen. In all these countries countless innocent lives have been lost by drone attacks, although exact numbers are difficult to determine as the strikes usually take place in remote areas.

The situation is complicated by the US government’s resistance to releasing its own assessment of the impact of strikes: information to which it has access given that the Predator drones carry high definition cameras and part of their mission is to record pre as well as post-strike images. In order to conduct an informed discussion on the impact of drone policy, exact figures of drone strike casualties are urgently needed.

Meanwhile, Pakistani decision-makers need to address a number of issues. However, they must first realise that the new drone hardware soon to be available to US decision-makers suggests that the policy of drone warfare will continue for the foreseeable future. The US expects to maintain a presence in Afghanistan for another ten years or so and will seek to defend its troops with the best possible military hardware available. Given the facts on the ground and Pakistani impotence in the face of American military might, it would be prudent for Pakistanis to focus instead on the levers they can control. 

The first lever should be of reconciliation. The government should start an active reconciliation approach with the Taliban – make it a matter of public policy to announce that the Pakistani government is willing to meet them whenever and wherever they require and whichever splinter group of the Taliban they represent. 

Negotiation with all the groups will provide the necessary framework for a larger composite dialogue. Mullah Baradar carries a lot of respect among the Pakistani and Afghan Taliban and could be a very useful interlocutor between the new TTP leadership and the Pakistani government. A megaphone approach should be used to make Pakistan’s masses aware that the government is serious about pursuing a useful dialogue.

The second lever is weapon control. The government needs to take concrete steps to stop the flow of illegal weaponry and explosives into Pakistan from across the border. It may be useful to consider fencing or other strict border controls to secure Pakistan’s boundaries. While the US has historically opposed border controls, this should now be discussed as part of the Pakistani government’s overall strategy to contain terrorism in Pakistan, Afghanistan and the US.

The third lever relates to economic policies. The country desperately needs investment in development and growth, both of which have suffered grievously due to the dangerous law and order situation. First, the youth of the tribal areas should be given preferential loans, training and an opportunity to become economically active. The tribal areas suffer from a serious lack of development and basic infrastructure.

Infrastructure development projects currently earmarked for implementation should be awarded to local companies or to companies with 50 percent local ownership modelled on mutual societies thus making locals stakeholders in the projects. 

Implementing such programmes will not only enable the government to address the root causes of issues that lead to unrest but also open up opportunities for people currently without much hope. It will provide an alternative for people trapped in a cycle of poverty and violence who join radical groups due to the lack of other available options.

The complicated issues of drone strikes, Talibanisation and growing discontent are challenging and cannot be easily resolved. However, history teaches us that we need to give peace a chance.

The international community should help Pakistan and promote the idea of giving peaceful negotiation a chance. Peace can never be won by using drones or terrorist acts; it can only be gained by dialogue. 

The writer is a London based independent political analyst. Email: aftabarif@hotmail.com 


Musharraf faces uncertain future. By Salahuddin Haider

Musharraf faces uncertain future. By Salahuddin Haider
  Arab News        December 26, 2013
THE fate of former Pakistan President Gen. Pervez Musharraf — facing treason charges for violating the Constitution — remains uncertain, despite unofficial reports that Pakistan Army is making all efforts to save its former chief.
Apparently two major forces are up in arms against the former strongman — Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, whose government was toppled in 1999 by Musharraf-led coup, and judges of the superior courts, who were sacked through an arbitrary order in November 2007. Neither can forget the treatment meted out to them.
It would be difficult to say whether they are craving for revenge but in the eyes of the law Musharraf is guilty on both counts.
As per Article 6 of the Constitution of Pakistan, any person who suspends or abrogates the Constitution or even found abetting those abrogating it shall be guilty of high treason— a crime punishable by death.
Observers may recall the overthrow of a powerful leader, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto by then army chief Gen. Ziaul Haq who later executed Bhutto. Gen. Zia had committed a similar crime but the courts used to validate the acts of those in power at that time.
The judiciary in the cases of Ayub Khan and Ziaul Haq had legitimized their military rules through the so-called “doctrine of necessity.”
The situation changed dramatically after the former Chief Justice of Pakistan, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, was interned by Musharraf in March 2007 for refusing to obey military’s command.
Judges, restored by a 16-member bench of the Supreme Court in July 2007, swore to undo any military adventure in future. That was a sea change in Pakistan’s checkered political history. Whether that will really protect the country from a military takeover in future is difficult to predict. At present, however, the judiciary does not seem to be in the mood for a compromise. The chief justice of the Islamabad High Court, and his counterpart in the Sindh High Court in Karachi, have already rejected Musharraf’s pleas for change of special courts, set up to try him.
But army’s pressure against its chief’s humiliation is too obvious to ignore.
It is an open secret that former army chief Gen. Kayani saved Musharraf from going behind the bars despite clear orders from the court.
The former president, who headed the army for 11 years, is living comfortably at his lavish farmhouse near Islamabad. The court’s orders declaring his house a private sub-jail has never been enforced.
Even two days ago, Musharraf was ordered to be produced before a trial court, but police and his team of defense counsel, saw to it that he remains at home. The court, in an obvious frustration, put off the hearing till Jan. 1. The former military chief has not only defied with impunity all court orders so far, he is yet to appear before any one of them.
Adding salt to injury, Musharraf virtually shocked them by conveying to the judges through his counsel that the emergency he had imposed as the army chief on Nov. 3, 2007, was necessary. He has been insisting on a court martial, emphasizing that the Army Act was the only law under which he can be tried. Civilian laws don’t apply on him.
The Supreme Court, country’s highest judicial forum, has returned with objections his application for reviewing the earlier order that declared the emergency rule of 2007 as illegal, but whether an amended petition will be accepted, is eagerly being awaited even by the public. While the battle on the legal ground is gaining traction, the army is also seemingly getting restless, but whether the army can really put up resistance beyond a certain level, is an important question. Democratic dispensation has gained considerable strength and the ambience or environment in the country is not like it used to be until a decade ago. Politicians and the Parliament are much stronger than before. The drama, likely to unfold in the days to come, will prove to be a case study for students of history and political pundits.

1971 Pakistan- India war - Unbiased views and facts, Sarmila Bose

The courageous Pakistan army stand on the eastern front —Sarmila Bose
There is much for Pakistan to come to terms with what happened in 1971. But the answers don’t lie in unthinking vilification of the fighting men who performed so well in the war against such heavy odds in defence of the national policy. Rather, in failing to honour them, the nation dishonours itself.
My introduction to international politics was 1971, as a schoolgirl in Calcutta. Many images from that year are still etched in my mind, but the culminating one was the photo on Ramna racecourse of two men sitting at a table — the smart, turbaned Sikh, ‘our’ war-hero, Jagjit Singh Aurora, and the large man in a beret, A A K Niazi, commander of the other side, signing the instrument of surrender.
Nearly a generation later, a chance interview for the BBC with Lt Gen. Aurora took me back to 1971. The interview was not about 1971, but about injustices suffered by Sikhs at the hands of the state General Aurora had served.
I thought he was a bigger hero for what he had to say then. That view was reinforced as I read — with incredulity — the disparaging remarks by other Indian officers about him, and each other, in their books. If this is what happened to the winning commander, I wondered what had happened to the other man in the photo. The result was a revelation.
It turns out that General Niazi has been my ‘enemy’ since the Second World War. As Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose and his Indian National Army fought on the Burma front in 1943-45 in their quest for India’s freedom, Niazi was fighting on the other side, for the British Indian Army, under the overall command of General (later Field Marshal) William Joseph Slim. Slim and his 14th Army halted the advance of the INA and the Japanese at the Imphal campaign and turned the course of the war.
In the process of inflicting military defeat upon my ancestor, Niazi’s performance was so exceptional that the British awarded him an on-the-spot Military Cross for action on the Assam-Burma front in June 1944. On another occasion they wanted to award a DSO, but he was too junior, so a Mention in Despatches was recorded.
In the original record of his MC signed by his commanding officers all the way up to Slim, which I obtained from the British Ministry of Defence, the British commanders describe Niazi’s gallantry in detail: “He organized the attack with such skill that his leading platoon succeeded in achieving complete surprise over the enemy.” They speak of how he personally led his men, the ‘great skill and coolness’ under fire with which he changed tactics with changing circumstances, created diversionary attacks, extricated his wounded, defeated the enemy and withdrew his men by section, remaining personally at the rear in every case.
The British honoured Niazi for “personal leadership, bravery and complete disregard for his own personal safety.” On 15 December 1944 the Viceroy Lord Wavell flew to Imphal and in the presence of Lord Mountbatten knighted Slim and his corps commanders Stopford, Scoones and Christison. Only two ‘Indian’ officers were chosen to be decorated by the Viceroy at that ceremony — ‘Tiger’ Niazi was one of them.
In 1971 Niazi was a highly decorated Pakistani general, twice receiving the Hilal-e-Jurat. He was sent to East Pakistan in April 1971 — part of a sorry tradition in South Asia of political rulers attempting to find military solutions to political problems. By then Tikka Khan had already launched the crackdown of 25 March for which he has been known to Bengalis as the ‘butcher of Bengal’ ever since. The population of East Bengal was completely hostile and Pakistan condemned around the world.
Authoritative scholarly analyses of 1971 are rare. The best work is Richard Sisson and Leo Rose’s War and Secession. Robert Jackson, fellow of All Soul’s College, Oxford, wrote an account shortly after the events. Most of the principal participants did not write about it, a notable exception being Gen. Niazi’s recent memoirs (1998). Some Indian officers have written books of uneven quality — they make for an embarrassing read for what the Indians have to say about one another.
However, a consistent picture emerges from the more objective accounts of the war. Sisson and Rose describe how India started assisting Bengali rebels since April, but “the Mukti Bahini had not been able to prevent the Pakistani army from regaining control over all the major urban centers on the East Pakistani-Indian border and even establishing a tenuous authority in most of the rural areas.” From July to October there was direct involvement of Indian military personnel. “…mid-October to 20 November… Indian artillery was used much more extensively in support …and Indian military forces, including tanks and air power on a few occasions, were also used…Indian units were withdrawn to Indian territory once their objectives had been brought under the control of the Mukti Bahini — though at times this was only for short periods, as, to the irritation of the Indians, the Mukti Bahini forces rarely held their ground when the Pakistani army launched a counterattack.”
Clearly, the Pakistani army regained East Pakistan for their masters in Islamabad by April-May, creating an opportunity for a political settlement, and held off both Bengali guerrillas and their Indian supporters till November, buying more time — time and opportunity that Pakistan’s rulers and politicians failed to utilise.
Contrary to Indian reports, full-scale war between India and Pakistan started in East Bengal on 21 November, making it a four-week war rather than a ‘lightning campaign’. Sisson and Rose state bluntly: “After the night of 21 November…Indian forces did not withdraw. From 21 to 25 November several Indian army divisions…launched simultaneous military actions on all of the key border regions of East Pakistan, and from all directions, with both armored and air support.” Indian officers like Sukhwant Singh and Lachhman Singh write quite openly in their books about India invading East Pakistani territory in November, which they knew was ‘an act of war’.
None of the outside scholars expected the Eastern garrison to withstand a full Indian invasion. On the contrary, Pakistan’s longstanding strategy was “the defense of the east is in the west”. Jackson writes, “Pakistani forces had largely withdrawn from scattered border-protection duties into cleverly fortified defensive positions at the major centres inside the frontiers, where they held all the major ‘place names’ against Mukti Bahini attacks, and blocked the routes of entry from India…”
Sisson and Rose point out the incongruity of Islamabad tolerating India’s invasion of East Pakistani territory in November. On 30 November Niazi received a message from General Hamid stating, “The whole nation is proud of you and you have their full support.” The same day Islamabad decided to launch an attack in the West on 2 December, later postponed to 3 December, after a two-week wait, but did not inform the Eastern command about it. According to Jackson, the Western offensive was frustrated by 10 December.
Though futile, the Western offensive allowed India to openly invade the East, with overwhelming advantages. “ …despite all these advantages, the war did not go as smoothly and easily for the Indian army…”, but Sisson and Rose come to the balanced judgment that “The Pakistanis fought hard and well; the Indian army won an impressive victory.” Even Indian officers concede the personal bravery of Niazi and the spirited fight put up by the Pakistanis in the East. That the troops fought so well against such overwhelming odds is a credit both to them, and to their commanders, for an army does not fight well in the absence of good leadership.
However, as Jackson put it, “…India’s success was inevitable from the moment the general war broke out — unless diplomatic intervention could frustrate it.” As is well known, Pakistan failed to secure military or diplomatic intervention. Sisson and Rose also say, “The outcome of the conflict on the eastern front after 6 December was not in doubt, as the Indian military had all the advantages.” On 14 December Niazi received the following message from Yahya Khan: “You have fought a heroic battle against overwhelming odds. The nation is proud of you …You have now reached a stage where further resistance is no longer humanly possible nor will it serve any useful purpose… You should now take all necessary measures to stop the fighting and preserve the lives of armed forces personnel, all those from West Pakistan and all loyal elements…” Sisson and Rose naturally describe this message as “implying that the armed forces in East Pakistan should surrender”.
No matter how traumatic the outcome of 1971 for Pakistan, the Eastern command did not create the conflict, nor were they responsible for the failure of the political and diplomatic process. Sent to do the dirty work of the political manoeuvrers, the fighting men seem to have performed remarkably well against overwhelming odds. It is shocking therefore to discover that they were not received with honour by their nation on their return. Their commander, Niazi, appears to have been singled out, along with one aide, to be punished arbitrarily with dismissal and denial of pension, without being given the basic right to defend himself through a court-martial, which he asked for.
The commission set up allegedly to examine what had happened in 1971 was too flawed in its terms of reference and report to have any international credibility. However, even its recommendations of holding public trials and court-martials were ignored. There is much for Pakistan to come to terms with what happened in 1971. But the answers don’t lie in unthinking vilification of the fighting men who performed so well in the war against such heavy odds in defence of the national policy. Rather, in failing to honour them, the nation dishonours itself.

India troops face action over Kashmir killing

India troops face action over Kashmir killing
Six army men, including two officers, to face court martial for fake encounter in which three civilians were killed.
Three years after a fake encounter that killed three men in the Machil sector of Indian-administered Kashmir, the Indian army has announced it would prosecute six of its personnel, including two officers.
Reports, quoting an army spokesperson, on Wednesday said colonel DK Pathania, the commanding officer of 4 Rajput Regiment, Major Upinder and four other personnel would face court martial for the encounter that took place along the line of control (LOC) with Pakistan.
The court martial has been ordered after a detailed inquiry with the help of the state police and judiciary which heard witnesses, recorded evidence and established the involvement of the six personnel, said the spokesperson, adding this would ensure justice to the victims.
Exemplary punishment
Reports quoting army sources said the six accused would be given exemplary punishment.
"They will most probably lose their jobs and other perks. They can be jailed also," the sources were quoted as saying.
On April 30, 2010, the Indian army announced it had killed three Pakistani "terrorists" in the Machil sector.
Later, it transpired that the three, Mohamad Shafi Lone, Shehzad Ahmed Khan and Riyaz Ahmed Lone, were residents of Nadihal in Baramullah district.
According to reports, they were lured by a security officer to Machil on the promise of getting them a job in the army. Instead, they were handed to the army for Rs 50,000 each.
The three were then killed in a fake encounter near the LoC. Claiming they were infiltrators, the Indian army buried them.
But soon, the police smelled something fishy as there were discrepancies in the version of the army on the encounter.
The encounter at the time triggered riots across the Kashmir valley leading to the deaths of 123 people.
In July 2010, the Kashmir state police investigated and filed a charge-sheet against the six army personnel.
Kashmir’s ruling National Conference welcomed the court martial proceedings.
"It is a welcome step but we strongly feel that the proceedings and the results be made transparent so that there is no scope for any allegation or feeling of a cover up," National Conference leader and political secretary to Chief Minister Omar Abdullah, Tanvir Sadiq said.

Pakistan occupying Gilgit Baltistan territory one by one

Pakistan occupying Gilgit Baltistan territory one by one
ISLAMABAD: After shattering the resolutions of the United Nations under its feet, Pakistan is continuing to illegally grab the territorial areas of Gilgit-Baltistan one by one while the political leadership of the region remains silent spectator as before.

After merging the geographical and culturally homogenous part of Chitral into the Pashtoon dominated KPK province, Pakistan has also occupied Shandur and now is eyeing the part of Diamer district where the mega dam is to be built so that Islamabad can claim the royalty of the reservoir.  The people of Gilgit-Baltistan bitterly divided on the basis of sectarianism now have left alone the residents of Diamer when they stood up against the occupation of their land by the KPK government eyeing on the royalty of the Diamer dam being built in the Giglit-Baltistan territory. It may also be noted that Pakistan has planned to build the mega dam in the disputed territory of Gilgit-Baltistan while under the UN resolutions it was not allowed to do so. As far as the Shandur area is concerned, the KPK government has occupied it and annually arranges the world famous Shandur festival on its own while the government and people of Gilgit-Baltistan attended the festival as guests. In the 70s, the then prime minister of Pakistan Zulfikar Ali Bhutto gifted the Shimshal area of Gilgit-Baltistan to China without letting the people of eh region know about it.

The latest bolt from the blue for the people of the disputed Gilgit-Baltistan came as the federal government decided to take over the Diamer land for an indefinite period after the KPK government occupied it and the Diamer people rose in protest against the occupation. The people of the region can never expect Pakistan as a neutral arbitrator and they are sure that Islamabad will never hand the piece of land to GB again. The people of eh region are fearful that slowly and stealthily Pakistan would be occupying the whole land of Gilgit-Baltistan as the  government of Mehdi Shah remains incapable of protecting the rights of the masses. The concerned people of Giglit-Baltistan have called upon the UN to intervene in the matter and top Pakistan from occupying the land of the region to protect the indigenous people from being annihilated by the occupying elements.



Wednesday, 25 December 2013

10 Common Habits That Damage the Kidneys

10 Common Habits That Damage the Kidneys

Kidney disease is one of the costliest illnesses in the world and managing kidney disease is very expensive.

Each year, lots of people die of kidney disease all over the world, and the number of people suffering from chronic renal failure, and need dialysis or kidney transplantation to stay alive keep increasing.

Statistics have it that, worldwide, more than millions patients are waiting for kidney transplants, but only a few thousands will receive transplants because of shortage of suitable organ donors.

Patients usually felt surprised when they are diagnosed of Kidney Failure. Experts have found the explanation from your daily life habits.

Here are the top habits which lead to your kidney failure:

1. Not emptying your bladder early: Maintaining a full bladder for a long time is a quick way of causing bladder damage. That the urine stays in the bladder for a long time can cause the bacteria breeding in urine to multiply quickly. Once the urine refluxes back to ureter and kidneys, the bacteria can result in kidney infections, then urinary tract infection, and then nephritis, even Uremia.
So, no matter how busy you are, remember to drink a lot of water and urinate regularly. Once you form the habit of holding back urine, it will ultimately damage your kidneys.

2. Not drinking enough water: The main functions of the kidneys are to regulate erythrocyte balances and eliminate metabolic wastes in urine. If we do not drink enough water, the blood will be concentrated and the blood flow to the kidney will not be adequate, thus the function of eliminating toxins in from blood will be impaired.

3. Taking too much salt: 95% sodium we consume through food is metabolized by the kidneys. Exceeding the salt intake will make the kidneys work harder to excrete the excess salt and can lead to decreased kidney function. This excess sodium will cause water retention, causing edema. Edema usually elevates blood pressure and increases the risk of developing kidney disease. The daily salt intake should be controlled within 6g per day.

4. Not treating common infections quickly and properly: Common infections, such as pharyngitis, tonsillitis, common cold etc, usually triggers or aggravates kidney damage. They do this by causing an acute attack of acute glomerulonephritis or chronic nephritis. So, you will see that people who get kidney disease for the first time or whose illness condition becomes worse usually present in hospitals with a history of cold or sore throat.
If after having cold, symptoms like blood in urine, swelling, headache, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, poor appetite appear, you should consult your doctor immediately, to assess your kidney functions, and start treatment if compromised.

5. Eating too much meat: Eating too much meat and protein can increase the metabolic load of the kidney. For those suffering from proteinuria, meat consumption too may aggravate protein leakage, worsening renal pathological lesion.
It is suggested that protein intake should be 0.8g/kg per day. This means that a person with 50 kg should consume 40g of protein per day. Meat consumption per day should be limited within 300g.

6. Not eating enough: This is equally as dangerous as eating too much, both of them will lead damages to your digestive organs where is full of mucosal tissues. Mucosal tissues relates closely to your immune system. This is why many kidney failure patients are diagnosed with "autoimmune kidney damages".

7. Painkiller abuse: The use of analgesics for a prolonged duration may reduce the flow blood and greatly affect kidney function. In addition, patients with analgesic-induced renal failure are more likely to suffer from bladder cancer.
Use analgesics only when it's absolutely necessary, learn to rest instead of taking to the bottles. If you have been on pain killers for a long term, it's about time you had a test to access you renal function done.

8. Missing your drugs: Hypertension and diabetes have been shown to precipitate or accelerate kidney damage, so if you are diagnosed as having any of these disease don't live your life in denial, USE YOUR DRUGS.
This will ultimately help control your condition while also helping to preserve your kidneys.

9. Drinking too much alcohol: Drinking alcohol without limitation may cause the deposition of uric acid in renal tubules, causing tubular obstruction and increasing risks of kidney failure.

10. Not resting enough: In our society, hypertension as a severe threat to life is largely due to stress. A common symptom of stress is insomnia. Blood pressure may increase by an average of 2-5mg/Hg because of insomnia. Chronically elevated blood pressure can cause damage to kidney capillaries giving rise to kidney problems. Thus, we need to develop a good attitude to life and strike a good balance between work and rest to protect your kidneys and live a healthy life.

At the early stage of kidney diseases, there are usually no the special symptoms, so lots of patients are not diagnosed until the acute attack appears or the illness condition develops into the late stage. So you should endeavor to do kidney function test from time to time to assess how healthy your kidneys are.

Never ignore the soreness of waist, swelling of the feet, changes in urine color or volume, increase in night urination, palor, high blood pressure and other such symptoms. Once found, you should go and see your doctor immediately.

For more insightful articles like this one, always check http://www.stayinghealthyplus.com/