| Baloch Society Of North America (BSO-NA) Baloch Society Of North America (BSO-NA) is working to unite and Organize all Baloch in North America and to expose the Occupation of our land (Balochistan) and exploitations of our resources by Pakistani and Iranian Governments, and to bring their Human Rights Violations in Balochistan into the world’s Notice. |
| I Home I About BSO-NA I About Balochistan I News and Articles I Letters And Opinion I BSO-NA Membership I BSO-NA Store I Contact us |
Indo-Pak statement lets down the martyrs of 26/11
B Raman
While assessing the meeting of Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh [ Images ] with President Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan at Yekaterinburg in Russia
, I had said: 'Manmohan Singh is not a man of confrontation. He took the decision to freeze the composite dialogue mainly because of the fears of a
likely adverse impact on the voting in the recently-held elections if he did not take a seemingly hard line against Pakistan. Now that the Congress-led
coalition has come back to power -- with the Congress improving its own individual position in the Lok Sabha -- -he is unlikely to feel the need for
maintaining the present hardline position on the composite dialogue. At this time, when winds of change for the better seem to be blowing towards
India from Washington, DC, Manmohan Singh would find it difficult to reject suggestions from the US for a political gesture to the government in
Islamabad [ Images ] by way of a resumption of the composite dialogue. The question is no longer whether it will be resumed, but when and how it
will be projected to save the faces of both India and Pakistan.'
In the context of this assessment made on June 19, Thursday's development during Singh's meeting with Pakistani Prime Minister Yusuf Raza
Gilani at the margins of the Non-Aligned Movement summit at Sharm-El-Sheikh in Egypt did not come as a surprise. I do feel upset not so much by
the reported agreement of Manmohan Singh that 'India was ready to discuss all issues with Pakistan, including all outstanding issues' as by the
phraseology relating to terrorism in the joint statement, which would enable Pakistan once again to wriggle out of any negative consequences
arising from its involvement in the Mumbai [ Images ] terrorist strike of November 26, 2008.
The relevant question is not whether Pakistan is against terrorism. All Pakistani leaders had said that they are against terrorism. But, not one of
them had ever agreed that the Lashkar-e-Tayiba [ Images ], which carried out the Mumbai outrage, is a terrorist organisation. Even the Pakistani
judiciary has already pronounced that the Zardari government has not been able to produce any evidence linking the LeT or the Jamaat-ud-Dawa
with any terrorist movement. The Lahore [ Images ] high court judgment of June 6, 2009, explaining the decision to release JUD chief Hafiz
Mohammad Sayeed from house arrest, clearly said as reported by the Daily Times: 'About the Dawa leaders' involvement in the Mumbai attacks, the
bench observed that not a single document had been brought on the record that Dawa or the petitioners were involved in the said incident. There
was no evidence that the petitioners had any links with Al Qaeda [ Images ] or any terrorist movement.'
The oral observations made earlier this week in the Pakistan Supreme Court by Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhury during the preliminary
arguments on the appeals sought to be filed by the Punjab [ Images ] and the federal governments against Sayeed's release made more or less
similar observations and expressed considerable scepticism over the case against Sayeed and the JUD.
When senior judges of the Lahore high court and the Supreme Court have already expressed their scepticism in open court over Indian allegations
of the involvement of the JUD, the political wing of the LeT, in the Mumbai attack, to expect that justice will be done to the memory of the 166 persons
killed in Mumbai -- 123 Indian civilians, 25 foreign civilians and 18 brave personnel of the security forces -- by the LeT terrorists as promised by the
Pakistani co-operation against terrorism will be naivete of a very high order comparable to the naivete of Neville Chamberlain, predecessor of
Winston Churchill [ Images ] as the British prime minister.
I would have been at least satisfied if the two prime ministers had specifically stated that the countries would co-operate against the LeT instead of
just saying that the two countries would co-operate against terrorism. If the prime minister's advisers had properly briefed him before his meeting
with Gilani, they would have drawn his attention to the following facts:
While even Pervez Musharraf [ Images ] banned the LeT for some months after the December 2001, attack on the Indian Parliament, Zardari has till
today not banned the JUD, the post-2001 moniker of the LeT.
Zardari and his advisers have been saying that they had to act against Sayeed and his associates because of the declaration of the anti-terrorism
committee of the UN Security Council that the JUD is a terrorist organisation and not because they had any independent evidence against it. It was
on these grounds that Sayeed was ordered to be released.
Not a single reference to the LeT. Not a single reference to its continuing terrorist infrastructure. And, we have provided dignity to Pakistan's
baseless allegations against Baloch freedom-fighters by agreeing to make a reference to Balochistan in the joint statement in the context of
terrorism by indirectly bringing on record in an official statement Pakistan's projection of the late Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti and other Baloch leaders
as terrorists. Hafiz Mohammed Sayeed is not a terrorist, but Bugti and other Baloch leaders were or are.That has been Pakistan's contention and we
have let this figure in the joint statement.
This agreement, which seeks to whitewash years of Pakistani sponsorship of terrorism against Indian civilians and security forces, will make all
those who died at the hands of the terrorists shed tears in heaven.
Related Links:
B Raman
While assessing the meeting of Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh [ Images ] with President Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan at Yekaterinburg in Russia
, I had said: 'Manmohan Singh is not a man of confrontation. He took the decision to freeze the composite dialogue mainly because of the fears of a
likely adverse impact on the voting in the recently-held elections if he did not take a seemingly hard line against Pakistan. Now that the Congress-led
coalition has come back to power -- with the Congress improving its own individual position in the Lok Sabha -- -he is unlikely to feel the need for
maintaining the present hardline position on the composite dialogue. At this time, when winds of change for the better seem to be blowing towards
India from Washington, DC, Manmohan Singh would find it difficult to reject suggestions from the US for a political gesture to the government in
Islamabad [ Images ] by way of a resumption of the composite dialogue. The question is no longer whether it will be resumed, but when and how it
will be projected to save the faces of both India and Pakistan.'
In the context of this assessment made on June 19, Thursday's development during Singh's meeting with Pakistani Prime Minister Yusuf Raza
Gilani at the margins of the Non-Aligned Movement summit at Sharm-El-Sheikh in Egypt did not come as a surprise. I do feel upset not so much by
the reported agreement of Manmohan Singh that 'India was ready to discuss all issues with Pakistan, including all outstanding issues' as by the
phraseology relating to terrorism in the joint statement, which would enable Pakistan once again to wriggle out of any negative consequences
arising from its involvement in the Mumbai [ Images ] terrorist strike of November 26, 2008.
The relevant question is not whether Pakistan is against terrorism. All Pakistani leaders had said that they are against terrorism. But, not one of
them had ever agreed that the Lashkar-e-Tayiba [ Images ], which carried out the Mumbai outrage, is a terrorist organisation. Even the Pakistani
judiciary has already pronounced that the Zardari government has not been able to produce any evidence linking the LeT or the Jamaat-ud-Dawa
with any terrorist movement. The Lahore [ Images ] high court judgment of June 6, 2009, explaining the decision to release JUD chief Hafiz
Mohammad Sayeed from house arrest, clearly said as reported by the Daily Times: 'About the Dawa leaders' involvement in the Mumbai attacks, the
bench observed that not a single document had been brought on the record that Dawa or the petitioners were involved in the said incident. There
was no evidence that the petitioners had any links with Al Qaeda [ Images ] or any terrorist movement.'
The oral observations made earlier this week in the Pakistan Supreme Court by Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhury during the preliminary
arguments on the appeals sought to be filed by the Punjab [ Images ] and the federal governments against Sayeed's release made more or less
similar observations and expressed considerable scepticism over the case against Sayeed and the JUD.
When senior judges of the Lahore high court and the Supreme Court have already expressed their scepticism in open court over Indian allegations
of the involvement of the JUD, the political wing of the LeT, in the Mumbai attack, to expect that justice will be done to the memory of the 166 persons
killed in Mumbai -- 123 Indian civilians, 25 foreign civilians and 18 brave personnel of the security forces -- by the LeT terrorists as promised by the
Pakistani co-operation against terrorism will be naivete of a very high order comparable to the naivete of Neville Chamberlain, predecessor of
Winston Churchill [ Images ] as the British prime minister.
I would have been at least satisfied if the two prime ministers had specifically stated that the countries would co-operate against the LeT instead of
just saying that the two countries would co-operate against terrorism. If the prime minister's advisers had properly briefed him before his meeting
with Gilani, they would have drawn his attention to the following facts:
While even Pervez Musharraf [ Images ] banned the LeT for some months after the December 2001, attack on the Indian Parliament, Zardari has till
today not banned the JUD, the post-2001 moniker of the LeT.
Zardari and his advisers have been saying that they had to act against Sayeed and his associates because of the declaration of the anti-terrorism
committee of the UN Security Council that the JUD is a terrorist organisation and not because they had any independent evidence against it. It was
on these grounds that Sayeed was ordered to be released.
Not a single reference to the LeT. Not a single reference to its continuing terrorist infrastructure. And, we have provided dignity to Pakistan's
baseless allegations against Baloch freedom-fighters by agreeing to make a reference to Balochistan in the joint statement in the context of
terrorism by indirectly bringing on record in an official statement Pakistan's projection of the late Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti and other Baloch leaders
as terrorists. Hafiz Mohammed Sayeed is not a terrorist, but Bugti and other Baloch leaders were or are.That has been Pakistan's contention and we
have let this figure in the joint statement.
This agreement, which seeks to whitewash years of Pakistani sponsorship of terrorism against Indian civilians and security forces, will make all
those who died at the hands of the terrorists shed tears in heaven.
Related Links:
-
Another Day of Infamy By B. Raman July 17, 2009
-
Stop meddling in Balochistan, Chooha Gilani tells India's Prime Minister
-
Balochistan bungle may prove costly
-
Rising disquiet in Congress over PM's Pak line
-
Pakistan's 26/11 queries an 'endless exercise':
-
PM Gilani gives proof of Indian interference in Balochistan to Manmohan
-
US pressure behind soft line with Pakistan?
-
Visit of Hilary Clinton to India By B. Raman
|
B. Raman is one of the top most south Asia expert and analyst. Please visit this page again as we bring his latest articles and expert analysis on the news and events as they happens in south Asia and around the world. Related links: |