New syllabus of Kashmiri nationalists, Dr Shabir Choudhry

New syllabus of Kashmiri nationalists, Dr Shabir Choudhry

We agree that Pakistanis:

1. Violated Standstill Agreement which they had with Kashmir;

2. Attacked Jammu and Kashmir with intention to occupy it;

3. Killed innocent and unarmed Kashmiri men and women;

4. Kidnapped Kashmir women, and sold them in towns of Pakistan;

5. Raped Kashmiri women to satisfy their lust;

6. Looted and plundered our motherland;

7. Established a puppet government in its occupied area to advance its agenda;

8. Created a situation which forced the Ruler of Jammu and Kashmir to seek help from India, and subsequent provisional accession;

9. Imposed a war that ensured forced division of our motherland;

10. Ensured that Kashmiris cannot represent their case in the UN or in any other international forum;

11. Requested a change in the UN resolution on Kashmir that people of Jammu and Kashmir cannot become independent, and all they have is a right of accession either to India or Pakistan;

12. Ensured that there is no solution to the Kashmir dispute, and refused to withdraw troops out of Jammu and Kashmir territories as demanded by the UNCIP Resolution on 13 August 1948;

13. Launched a military expedition in areas of Poonch to teach a lesson to people who opposed Pakistan’s interference in matters of Azad Kashmir;

14. Ensured that people of so called Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan could not interact or socialise with each other and have better understanding;

15. Furthermore, they ensured that people of both regions are denied of their fundamental rights;

16. Signed Tashkent and Simla agreements to ensure that Kashmir dispute remains bilateral dispute where people of Jammu and Kashmir have no role in determining the future of our motherland;

17. Communalised the Kashmiri rights struggle by injecting religious hatred and intolerance;

18. Established and promoted their proxies in all regions of Jammu and Kashmir to ensure that the Pakistani interests are served in the region;

19. Planned and started a proxy war in the Valley of Kashmir to create divisions among the people of Kashmir, and make the struggle Hindu verses Muslims to justisfy establishment of Pakistan;

20. Ensured that people of Jammu and Kashmir remain divided on religious, cultural and ethnic lines, and that there is no solution to the dispute;

21. Ensured that people of so called Azad Kashmir remain under the strict control of GCO Muree and Lent Officers of Pakistan;

22. Imprisoned people in Gilgit Baltistan under sedition charges to ensure that no one dares to speak for independence, and criticise Pakistani imperialism in Gilgit Baltistan and Azad Kashmir;

23. Imposed heavy sentences on political and human rights activists like Baba Jan to deter others;

24. Ban books and castigate writers who criticise Pakistani designs on Jammu and Kashmir;

25. Ban Maps and sack those who print maps of Jammu and Kashmir state showing exactly which areas is occupied by which country;

26. Close shops which publish or sell books on Kashmir history;

Despite all these and many other misdeeds left out, we will not demonstrate against Pakistani Prime Ministers when they visit Britain.

Furthermore, we will not demonstrate when the Pakistan army Chief visits Britain.

Moreover, we will not demonstrate when Chinese President visits Britain, even though China also occupies Jammu and Kashmir territory.

However, we will demonstrate against Indian Prime Minister. Other parties are doing it and we don’t do it we could be castigated for siding with India.

Despite all this, we expect the world community and people of India and non Muslims of Jammu and Kashmir to believe that our struggle is against all three countries; and that we are true nationalists and our struggles is based on secular ideals.

Writer is a political analyst, TV anchor and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs. Email:drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com

Is this hypocrisy or nationalism? Dr Shabir Choudhry

Is this hypocrisy or nationalism? Dr Shabir Choudhry

London          31 October 2015

Where India is wrong, oppose and condemn; but where Pakistan is wrong, be courageous to criticise that as well.

The former Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir is forcibly occupied by India, Pakistan and China, claim Kashmiri nationalists. Is it not strange that despite this claim their struggle seems to be against India only; and there is tons of evidence to support this?

No matter how much you like or dislike Narendra Modi, the fact is that he is an elected Prime Minister of India. We have a right to oppose his policies and hold demonstrations against him, but we don’t have a right to use foul language against him and hurt sentiments of millions of Indian people. Remember we need support of civil society of India and Pakistan to win our case against their governments.

Prime Minister Modi is visiting Britain on 12 November 2015; and Kashmiri nationalists living here appear to be more eager than Pakistanis or pro Pakistan Kashmiris to hold demonstrations against him.

One Kashmiri nationalist leader urged me to support these demonstrations and hold a TV debate on this. I asked him why we should do that. He said because India occupies Kashmir.

I said Pakistan also occupies Kashmir. When Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif visited Britain a few weeks ago, did you organise a demonstration against him? Apart from that, Army Chief of Pakistan also visited Britain recently, did you or any other nationalist party organise any demonstration against him?

He was not ready for this response, so he had no logical reply to this. I further said: Kashmir watchers and the international community are not fool. We claim to be against occupation of all three countries, and working for united and independent Jammu and Kashmir; but our actions do not support this contention.

When Pakistani Prime Minister visits Britain we remain quiet; and when the Pakistani Army Chief visits Britain we also remain quiet. There is news that even some Kashmiris desperately tried to meet these officials or their subordinates.

Furthermore, when the Chinese President visited Britain a few weeks ago, we also remained quiet. There was no demonstration of any kind. No one expressed any interest to organise any demonstration or a picket; or even issue a statement against him.

This behaviour of Kashmiri nationalists clearly demonstrate that their struggle, in practise, is not against all occupiers. Despite this obvious contradiction and a big flaw in their policy, Kashmiri nationalists expect the world community to support their cause. Which cause, one may ask? Either they are fooling themselves or they wrongly think they are fooling the world community.

No matter what we Kashmiri nationalists think of ourselves; many Kashmir watchers think we are a confused lot, and are only wasting our time. How can we get support of other countries when our struggle lacks credentials of a genuine nationalist struggle? How can they support us when our struggle is perceived as an extension of GHQ of Pakistan and aimed at targeting India only?

Kashmiri stalwarts of Pakistani establishment are very active in organising demonstrations against India in some cities of the world. All this is done in name of the Kashmiri struggle. New and attractive slogans are used to attract people and to camouflage their real intentions. It is debatable if these efforts will help or support the genuine Kashmiri struggle for independence.

This is the same policy which was formulated by the Pakistani establishment in September 1947; and successfully sold to the people of Jammu and Kashmir with different labels. When they realise that some people are becoming suspicious of their policy, they either change the label on the bottle or defame those people with some silly allegations.

Some Kashmiri nationalists eventually understood the game plan of Pakistani establishment, and formulated a policy that those who are occupied by Pakistan, they should struggle against the Pakistani occupation; and those who are occupied by India, they should struggle against the Indian occupation.

These nationalists understood that policy of liberating Jammu and Kashmir under India was formulated by the Pakistani establishment, and its aim was to keep India bleeding; and give this impression that only the Indian side of Kashmir was disputed. Furthermore, a man chained in one room cannot help his brother chained in another room; hence both have to struggle against their captors.

However, it is sad to note that some people with this thinking are also at the forefront of organising demonstrations against India, knowing full well that the stalwarts of the Pakistani establishment are working on a script prepared by the Pakistani establishment.

To conclude, this policy of Pakistani establishment can promote some people and reward some others; but it will never help us to liberate Jammu and Kashmir. Furthermore, it will help to send a wrong signal to the world community, confuse people of Jammu and Kashmir and keep them divided.

Thinking people can decide if they want to promote the cause of the Pakistani establishment; or support the cause of united and independent Jammu and Kashmir.

Writer is a political analyst, TV anchor and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs. Email:drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com

Over 100 eminent and distinguished scientists rejected intolerance in India

Over 100 eminent and distinguished scientists rejected intolerance in India

Padma-winning scientists protest 'a rash of bigoted acts'

I am proud of the Patriotic Indians, and good Hindus, Jains, Sikhs, Christians, Muslims, Dalits and others who are standing up and protesting against the freedoms that are being usurped. If we don't save the nation now, it will be difficult to redeem it.
God bless India and Indians, and only God can change the heart of our Prime Minister to prevent the nation from going down the tube. All he needs to do is speak up and say, I am the Prime Minister and no one dares mess my nation, every Indian has the right to speak, read, write, eat, drink, wear or believe what ever he or she has come to believe, and no one will mess with them.

Really, that is all it takes, people are losing hope in the Prime Minister and it is time for him to speak up.

Mike Ghouse

http://MikeGhouseforIndia.blogspot.com 

Over 100 eminent and distinguished scientists issue a joint statement against 'intolerance and rejection of reason' by 'important functionaries of the government'.

Scroll Staff  · Yesterday · 07:45 pmhttp://scroll.in/article/765415/full-text-eminent-scientists-protest-a-rash-of-bigoted-acts-attacks-on-minorities-and-dalits

Over 100 eminent and distinguished scientists, many of them recipients of Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri awards, have issued a joint statement expressing their deep concern with the "climate of intolerance, and the ways in which science and reason are being eroded in the country".

"It is the same climate of intolerance, and rejection of reason that has led to the lynching in Dadri of Mohammad Akhlaq Saifi and the assassinations of Prof Kalburgi, Dr Narendra Dabholkar and Shri Govind Pansare," the scientists said in their statement, taking the government to task for a "rash of bigoted acts, attacks on minorities and Dalits, which show no signs of abating."

Invoking Article 51 A (h) of the the Indian Constitution, the scientists pointed out that it demands, as a part of the fundamental duties of the citizens, that we "...develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform."

"Unfortunately," they went on to add,  "What we are witnessing instead is the active promotion of irrational and sectarian thought by important functionaries of the government."

This statement follows another group of over 130 scientists who had urged President Pranab Mukherjee on Tuesday to take “suitable action” to stop incidents of “intolerance, polarisation and [the spreading] of communal hatred” from “taking our country, which has a rich heritage and cultural diversity, backwards.”

Earlier, artists and sociologists had expressed their support of over 35 writers across the country, representing several linguistic groups, who returned their Sahitya Akademi awards or resigned from their positions at the country's top literary body to protest what they perceived as the rising tide of intolerance and the shrinking space for free expression.

The avalanche of these protests was triggered off by Hindi writer Uday Prakash who was the first to return his award to Sahitya Akademi, which was soon followed by noted writer Nayantara Sahgal and former Lalit Kala Akademi chairman Ashok Vajpeyi.

"The writers have shown the way with their protests," the statement by scientists said. "We scientists now join our voices to theirs, to assert that the Indian people will not accept such attacks on reason, science and our plural culture. We reject the destructive narrow view of India that seeks to dictate what people will wear, think, eat and who they will love."

The full text of the statement is given below.

The scientific community is deeply concerned with the climate of intolerance, and the ways in which science and reason are being eroded in the country.

It is the same climate of intolerance, and rejection of reason that has led to the lynching in Dadri of Mohammad Akhlaq Saifi and the assassinations of Prof Kalburgi, Dr Narendra Dabholkar and Shri Govind Pansare. All three fought against superstition and obscurantism to build a scientific temper in our society. Prof Kalburgi was a renowned scholar and an authority on the Vachana literature associated with the 12th-century reformer Basava, who opposed institutionalised religion, caste and gender discrimination. Similarly, Dr Dabholkar and Shri Pansare promoted scientific temper through their fight against superstition and blind faith.

The Indian Constitution in Article 51 A (h) demands, as a part of the fundamental duties of the citizens, that we '...develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform'. Unfortunately, what we are witnessing instead is the active promotion of irrational and sectarian thought by important functionaries of the government.

The Indian civilisation is a truly plural one. We have always had many practices and communities that have allowed space for each other; we celebrate the festivals and anniversaries of all faiths. This unity and peace has now been disturbed by a rash of bigoted acts, attacks on minorities and Dalits, which show no signs of abating.

The writers have shown the way with their protests. We scientists now join our voices to theirs, to assert that the Indian people will not accept such attacks on reason, science and our plural culture. We reject the destructive narrow view of India that seeks to dictate what people will wear, think, eat and who they will love.

We appeal to all other sections of society to raise their voice against the assault on reason and scientific temper we are witnessing in India today.

The views expressed in the statement are individual and do not reflect views of the institution a signatory is affiliated to.

Dr Alladi Sitaram Visiting Professor, Chennai Mathematical Institute; Professor Emeritus, Indian Statistical Institute, Bengaluru

Dr Ashoke Sen, Padma Bhushan, Fellow of Royal Society (FRS), Distinguished Professor, Harish-Chandra Research Institute, Allahabad

Dr Ashok Jain, Former Director, National Institute of Science Technology and Development Studies (NISTADS), New Delhi

Dr A Gopalakrishnan, Former Chairman, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, Government of India

Dr D Balasubramanian, Padma Shri Research Director, LV Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, & former Director Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad

Dr Madabusi Raghunathan, Padma Bhushan, Fellow of Royal Society (FRS), Professor, National Centre for Mathematics, Indian Institute of Technology, Mumbai

Dr PM Bhargava, Padma Bhushan, Former Director, Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad (one of the original signatories to the 1981 Scientific Temper Statement)

Dr P Balaram, Padma Bhushan, Former Director, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru
Dr Satyajit Mayor, Foreign Associate, US National Science Academy, Director, National Centre for Biological Sciences, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bengaluru
Dr Spenta Wadia, Emeritus Professor and Founding Director, International Centre for Theoretical Sciences, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bengaluru

Dr AP Balachandran, Joel Dorman Steele Professor of Physics (Emeritus), Physics Department, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York, USA.

Dr Abhishek Dhar, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bengaluru

Dr Alak K Ray, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai

Dr Alok Laddha, Chennai Mathematics Institute, Bangalore

Dr Amit Sengupta, National Convenor, Peoples Health Movement

Dr Anna George, National Institute of Immunology, New Delhi

Dr Arnab Bhattacharya, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai

Dr Arvind, Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Mohali

Dr Ashvin Vishvanath, University of California-Berkeley, USA

Dr Avinash Dhar, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bengaluru

Dr B Ravindran, Institute for Life Sciences, Bhubaneswar

Dr BLS Prakasa Rao, CR Rao Advanced Institute of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science, Hyderabad

Dr B Ananthanarayan, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru

Dr B Rajeev, Indian Statistical Institute, Bangalore

Dr B Ekbal, Former Vice Chancellor, Kerala University

Dr B Sury, Indian Statistical Institute, Bengaluru

Dr Chandrasekhar Khare, Fellow of Royal Society, Professor of Mathematics, University of California-Los Angeles, USA, and Tata Institute of Fundamental Research
Mr D Raghunandan, Director, Centre of Technology and Development, New Delhi

Dr DP Sen Gupta, Visiting Professor, National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bengaluru
Dr Debashis Ghoshal, School of Physical Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.

Dr Dhruv Raina, Zakir Husain Centre for Educational Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi

Dr Dilip Ahuja, Profesor, National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bengaluru

Dr Dinesh Abrol, Institute of Studies in Industrial. Development, New Delhi

Dr Dipendra Prasad, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai

Dr Firoza Sutaria, Indian Institute of Astrophysics, Bengaluru

Dr Gadadhar Misra, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru

Dr Gautam Mandal, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai

Dr Hema Murthy, Indian Institute of Technology, Chennai

Dr Joseph Samuel, Raman Research Institute, Bengaluru

Dr Justin David, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru

Dr Kapil Paranjape, Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Mohali

Dr LS Shashidhara, Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Pune

Dr Leena ChandranWadia, Observer Research Foundation, Mumbai

Dr MG Narasimhan, National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bengaluru

Dr MRN Murthy, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru

Dr MVN Murthy, Professor Emeritus, The Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Chennai
Dr Madan Rao, Raman Research Institute and NCBS-TIFR, Bengaluru
Dr Mangal C Mahato, Department of Physics, North East Hill University, Shillong

Dr Nilmani Mathur, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai

Dr P Ajith, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bengaluru

Dr Pallab Basu, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bengaluru

Dr Partha P Majumder, National Institute of Biomedical Genomics, Kalyani

Dr Parthib Basu, Department of Zoology, Calcutta University, Kolkata

Mr Prabir Purkayastha, Chairperson, Knowledge Commons, New Delhi

Dr Prajit K Basu, Centre for Neural and Cognitive Sciences, University of Hyderabad
Dr Prajval Shastri, Indian Institute of Astrophysics, Bengaluru

Dr Pramathanath Sastry, Chennai Mathematical Institute, Chennai

Dr Pravabati Chinganbam, Indian Institute of Astrophysics, Bengaluru

Dr Probal Choudhuri, Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata

Dr Purushottam Kulkarni, Indian Institute of Technology, Mumbai

Dr R Ramanujam, Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Chennai

Dr R Shankar, Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Chennai

Dr Rahul Roy, Indian Statistical Institute, New Delhi

Dr Rajat Tandon, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Hyderabad

Dr Rajesh Gopakumar, Director, International Centre for Theoretical Sciences, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bengaluru

Dr Rama Govindarajan, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Hyderabad

Dr Ranjini Bandyopadhyay, Raman Research Institute, Bengaluru

Dr Ravinder Banyal, Indian Institute of Astrophysics, Bengaluru

Dr Riddhi Shah, School of Physical Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.
Dr Ronnie Sebastian, Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Pune

Dr Rukmini Dey, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bengaluru

Dr S Chakrabarti, Department of Chemistry, Calcutta University, Kolkata

Dr S Ranganathan, National Institute of Advanced Studies Bengaluru

Dr Sabyasachi Chatterjee, Formerly Indian Institute of Astrophysics, Bengaluru; and President All India Peoples Science Network

Dr Sachindeo Vaidya, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru

Dr Samriddhi Sankar Ray, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bengaluru

Dr Sandeep Krishna, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bengaluru

Dr Sanjib Sabhapandit, Raman Research Institute, Bengaluru

Dr Santanu Datta, Chief Scientific Officer, BUGWORKS Inc., Bengaluru

Dr Satyajit Rath, National Institute of Immunology, New Delhi

Dr Saumen Datta, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai

Dr Shamsher Singh, Indian Statistical Institute, Bengaluru

Dr Sharada Srinivasan, National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bengaluru

Dr Shiraz Naval Minwalla, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai

Dr Shrikrishna, G Dani Indian Institute of Technology, Mumbai

Dr Shyamala Mani, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru

Dr Siva Athreya, Indian Statistical Institute, Bengaluru

Dr Sorab N Dalal, Advanced Centre for Treatment, Research and
Education in Cancer, Navi Mumbai

Dr Sriram Ramaswamy, Director, TIFR Centre for Interdisciplinary Sciences, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Hyderabad

Dr Subhro Bhattacharjee, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research,
Begaluru
Dr Sumati Surya, Raman Research Institute, Bengaluru

Dr Sumathi Rao, Harish-Chandra Research Institute, Allahabad.

Dr Sunil Mukhi, Indian Institute of Science Education and
Research, Pune

Dr Suresh Govindarajan, Dept of Physics, Indian Institute of Technology,
Chennai.
Dr Suvrat Raju, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bengaluru
Dr T Jayaraman, School of Habitat Studies, Tata Institute of Social
Sciences, Mumbai

Dr TR Govindarajan, Chennai Mathematical Institute, Chennai

Ms Tejal Kanitkar, Centre for Climate Change and Sustainability Studies, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai

Dr Tiju Thomas, Indian Institute of Technology, Chennai

Dr Todadri Senthil, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), USA

Dr Vani VC, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru

Dr Venkatesh Athreya, Adjunct Professor, Asian College of Journalism, Chennai; formerly President All India Peoples Science Network

Dr Vidita Vaidya, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai
Dr Vijay Kumar, Krisnamurthy, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bengaluru

Dr Vineeta Bal, National Institute of Immunology, New Delhi

Dr Vishal Vasan, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research

Dr Vivek Borkar, Institute Chair Professor, Indian Institute of Technology, Mumbai

Interview of Lt General Moin Uddin Haider, October 2015

Interview of Lt General Moin Uddin Haider, October 2015

There has been a decline in terrorist attacks since Operation Zarb-e-Azb began in June 2014. However, terrorists still manage to pull off a major strike every now and then, the Badaber attack being the latest example. What does it signify?

It signifies that the cancer of terrorism has spread far and wide over the last 30-35 years. FATA has been identified as an epicentre of terrorism. Militants have been defeated in Swat. And after South Waziristan, an operation is underway in North Waziristan. Terrorists are on the run. Their operational areas and sanctuaries – used for training, manufacturing improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and planning terrorist activities – have been taken away from them. They have melted into the cities and areas near the Pak-Afghan border. However, their sleeper cells continue to exist, and they can still play havoc. It will take time to fully eradicate them. The key [to this problem] is the army’s presence in FATA and continued pressure on militants, including operations against them in the cities.

While one aspect of this fight is being taken care of by the army, the challenge of defeating the extremist mindset is there. Extremists claim that they are fighting for a noble cause and exploiting the sacred name of Islam. But their aim is to destabilise Pakistan and for personal gains, which must be exposed. To defeat the extremist mindset, we need to reform the education system, improve governance and ensure quick and cheap justice. If people are disillusioned, they become easy prey to extremist ideologies.

Which areas need urgent attention in the war on terror?

Firstly, internally displaced persons IDPs call for our urgent attention. They need to be made stakeholders in the peace process. There’s a need to reconstruct their destroyed homes and infrastructure.

Secondly, the mistakes of the Swat operation should not be repeated. The provincial administration, the police and the judges failed to fill the vacuum after the military ousted the militants from Swat. This should not be repeated in FATA. The government must deploy the best human resources there and move fast to integrate FATA into Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

Thirdly, we need to restore the sanctity of the Pak-Afghan border, which was destroyed after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Before the Soviet invasion, there was a system of passes, but for the last 30-35 years there have hardly been any checks. The Afghan side does not agree to fencing the border because they believe it will make the Durand Line permanent. No Afghan government has recognised the Durand Line as an international border. But such measures must be taken. How can you defeat terrorism without border surveillance and control? Even the Badaber attackers sneaked into Pakistan from Afghanistan.

How do you view the military strategy?

The army is learning from experience, and from its shortcomings and mistakes. It has improved since the South Waziristan days, when the casualty rate was high. But now all battalions sent to the tribal areas are trained in mountain and guerrilla warfare. As a result, the casualty rate is down and they are proving to be more effective.

Intelligence gathering is another challenge. If you are not forewarned, you can not be forearmed. Therefore, informers need to be infiltrated into terror groups. Sometimes intelligence is timely, at other times not. But occasionally despite information, the 24/7 security is relaxed. We still need to learn lessons from incidents like Badaber.

Certain quarters allege that the army operation is not across the board. For instance, Indians accuse Pakistan of not targeting groups like the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba (LeT).

In my experience the LeT does not break any Pakistani law. It’s a Kashmir-centric group, which is occasionally accused of carrying on activities beyond the disputed territory – that is inside India. It is a serious matter as it can bring two nuclear-armed countries to war. But for us the question is, why open another front when the group is not threatening us?

After the UN Security Council resolutions in 2002, the LeT transformed itself into Jamaat-ud-Dawaa (JUD), which focuses on social work. But the Mumbai attack created complications. We do not think Hafiz Saeed was involved in the attack. However, sooner or later, Pakistan needs to ban all private armies. But right now, the focus should be only on those challenging the writ of the state and attacking our armed forces.

Is there a fear of an extremist mindset prevailing within certain sections of the armed forces? 

Such people can exist at various levels. For example, Javed Nasir, who was appointed as ISI chief by Nawaz Sharif, had an extremist mindset. We hear that he sent militants even to a friendly country. But during the Musharraf era, such elements were removed. However, even before Musharraf, the army as an institution kept an eye on such elements.  It’s not possible for anyone to deviate from the army’s stated policy. Several officials were court-martialled for extremist tendencies. The army always takes action against such elements, regardless of sect or school of thought.

How do you view the role of the civilian side in this war?

After [the formulation of the] National Action Plan, coordination among the law enforcement agencies has improved.  The provincial counter-terrorism departments are functioning. However, the central secretariat has not been established yet, because of lack of resources, but that isn’t the only issue. Politicians give the impression that the operation is only the army’s concern and not their responsibility. They are interested mostly in money-making ventures. They are least bothered about reforms in the police force, which suffers on account of political interference and corruption. There is nepotism even in its recruitment. In Sindh, many policemen have been arrested for their involvement in crime and extortion. A list of 3,400 policemen involved in crime has been made public.

Also, no one is willing to take ideological ownership of the war against extremism. The problem of a multi-tier education system, which is dividing society, is not on the radar of the political parties and neither are judicial reforms on their agenda.

As a consequence of the high fees of lawyers and a slow judicial process, cases keep dragging on. Also, politicians do not want local bodies – a must for solving the day-to-day problems of citizens and providing them basic amenities.

Many term Musharraf’s decision to join the US-led war on terror an unwise one. Why?

At that time, there was a military government in place and one man could take a decision. However, even if there was a democratic government, a similar decision would have been taken as the United States was in a rage. It had pulled out a sword to salvage its honour after the 9/11 attacks. “Are you with us or with terrorism?” was the kind of question being asked. It was a difficult situation. Americans had no problem dropping bombs this or that side of the Durand Line. For them it was an emotional time, but it also served the objectives of the neo-cons – that of bringing boots on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq. Not just Musharraf, any other leader would have made a similar decision.

Are you hopeful that Pakistan will prevail in this war?  

Frankly speaking, a few years ago it seemed that the militants could knock and enter any door. We were on the defensive. But now the initiative is with the armed forces. And it is the militants who are on the run. They can still resort to a fleeting attack as they did on Badaber, but we are on the right course. The focus of this operation now is also on corruption money, which is being used in terrorism. Whether the politicians like it or not, the crackdown on corruption enjoys overwhelming public support.

This interview was originally published in Newsline’s October 2015 issue.

http://www.newslinemagazine.com/2015/10/cover-story-interview-lt-genl-moinuddinhaider/