July 16, 2005

It's Pakistan, Stupid!

By Paul Sperry

FrontPageMagazine.com | May 6, 2005

Law enforcement has a term for the period after a crisis when things revert to norm -- condition white. Well, the American people are just about there, three-and-a-half years after the 9/11 attacks.

But as the media obsess over Michael Jackson's favorite lubricants and Paula Abdul's dalliances with idol wannabes, al-Qaida is "very active" recruiting and planning to attack the United States again. "As months and years pass," Vice President Dick Cheney warns, "they are hoping that our country will grow complacent" and forget the horror of 9/11. And they're getting their wish, judging from the picayune issues that are catching the nation's attention now.

Cheney echoed President Bush's own warning a few days earlier to resist the urge to lower our guard. "One of my concerns after September the 11th is the farther away we got from September the 11th, the more relaxed we would all become and assume that there wasn't an enemy out there ready to hit us," Bush asserted.

Do they know something we don't? Short answer: yes.

Behind the scenes, homeland security officials are wringing their hands over intelligence indicating al-Qaida is preparing to attack major American cities, including Washington, using Pakistani nationals and possibly Pakistani-Americans.

Internal Department of Homeland Security documents I've obtained show officials fear Pakistan-based al-Qaida may be sending terrorists our way, including ones trained in terror camps up and running inside Pakistan -- that's right, Pakistan. The terror-training camps we shut down in Afghanistan are now open for business on the other side of the border, despite Islamabad's apparent efforts to crack down on them.

According to the closely held intelligence bulletins, officials worry Pakistanis trained in the camps are trying to sneak into America to carry out terrorist attacks. In fact, U.S. border authorities are reminded each day in shift musters that Pakistanis pose the No. 1 terrorist threat to America right now. And for the past several months, they have been under orders to increase scrutiny of travelers of Pakistani origin.

The latest advisory puts authorities on high alert for Pakistani terrorists trying to enter the U.S. with fake British passports.

"A number of Pakistani-based young men in their 20's may be traveling to the U.S. with altered United Kingdom passports in order to engage in terrorist-related activity," says the highly sensitive DHS action memo.

"Of most interest may be individuals fitting this description traveling to Washington D.C., Houston, Chicago or New York."

The FBI says al-Qaida leaders -- many of whom are believed to be hiding in Pakistan, as evidenced most recently by the capture there of senior operative Abu Farraj al-Libbi -- have discussed plans for a 9/11-type attack in which hijackers would board planes in Britain so they wouldn't have to use U.S. visas. Customs inspectors are questioning all male Pakistani travelers between the ages of 18 and 35 bearing British passports, as part of the latest DHS directive known as Intelligence Driven Special Operation #2005-07.

Even Pakistani-Americans have been subjected to special screening.

Fearing some may be returning from terrorist camps in their ancestral homeland, customs officials have been directed to not only question them about their trip and activities but to also search their arms and legs for signs of having had terrorist training. They've been told to look for anything from rope burns to bruises to possible injuries suffered from using firearms or explosives. The body searches stopped after the Pakistani Embassy complained, but they are still being asked a battery of questions.

"Many of the individuals trained in the Pakistani camps are destined to commit illegal activities in the United States," says the two-page DHS warning that launched IDSO #2004-022. (Click here to view page one and page two, parts of which I have redacted to protect some of the more sensitive countermeasures.)

The unusual steps show how desperate homeland security officials are to disrupt what they believe is a major attack planned by terrorists of Pakistani origin.

At the same time, U.S. immigration authorities are targeting Pakistanis living illegally in America for deportation. Since 9/11, they've rounded up and removed three times more Pakistani absconders than they did during the comparable period before 9/11. DHS data also show the number of Pakistani removals dwarfs those of illegals from all other Muslim nations.

Pakistanis account for most of the OTMs -- other than Mexicans – crossing the U.S. border with Mexico illegally from countries considered high risk for terrorism. And officials fear some may try to smuggle nuclear or radiological weapons across the porous border into America.

Osama bin Laden, who has long sought a nuclear weapon or radioactive materials to make a so-called dirty bomb, recently secured from a Saudi cleric a religious ruling giving him the green light to use nuclear weapons against Americans. He and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, along with much of al-Qaida's inner circle, are thought to be hiding in Pakistan's northern badlands. In fact, they've recently used couriers to deliver video- and audio-taped messages to Al-Jazeera TV's bureaus in Islamabad and Karachi. And just yesterday it was announced that one of their top operatives --al-Libbi -- was captured in that same badlands area.

Pakistan, which husbanded al-Qaida and served as a base of operations for the 9/11 plotters, has long been a hotbed of terrorist activity. The war on terror started in Pakistan, and many officials believe it will end there.

But for that to happen, they say Bush must pressure Islamabad to shut down the terrorist camps in Pakistan, because U.S. forces can't do it unilaterally. Islamabad refuses to allow our troops based in Afghanistan to cross the border into neighboring Pakistan.

After the 9/11 attacks, President Bush demanded the Taliban close terror camps in Afghanistan. On Sept. 20, 2001, he warned: "Tonight the United States of America makes the following demands on the Taliban ... Close immediately and permanently every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan."

Yet Pakistan, the cradle of the Taliban movement, gets no such ultimatums regarding its own terror camps. Too be sure, Islamabad cut formal ties with the Taliban after 9/11, and has vowed to crack down on terrorists in its country. But the seeming double standard over the camps still gripes law enforcement here.

"What gets me is while we were going after the Taliban in Afghanistan, there were a lot of training camps in Pakistan. I mean, there was like a ton. That was where the terrorists were getting most of their training -- in Pakistan -- and they're still getting training there," says John M. Cole, who until last year worked at FBI headquarters as program manager for foreign intelligence investigations covering Pakistan, India and Afghanistan.

While the arrest of al-Libbi was a blow to al-Qaida and a win for our side, untold numbers of terrorists are still plotting and training inside Pakistan -- and preparing to launch attacks against America. Cole and others don't understand why Washington is taking the unnecessary risk of trying to catch the bad guys here when Islamabad could be doing more to stop them over there -- or at least letting our troops help stop them.

Sperry, a Hoover Institution media fellow and Investor's Business Daily veteran, is author of the just-released book, INFILTRATION: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington (Nelson Current, 2005). He can be reached at sperry@sperryfiles.com.


July 15, 2005

Listen to Salman Khan, know about his underworld connections

Listen to Salman Khan www.intellibriefs.com/salman.wav

Akshardham attack plotted in Riyadh: Witness

Press Trust of India

Ahmedabad, July 15, 2005

A key witness in the Akshardham temple terrorist attack case on Friday claimed that several religious leaders and heads of terrorist groups from Hyderabad and Ahmedabad met in Riyadh in Saudi Arabia in 2002 to conspire and avenge the killing of Muslims during the post-Godhra communal riots in Gujarat.

The name of the witness cannot be revealed due to a gag order issued by the special POTA court, prosecution sources said on Friday night.

Trial in the sensational attack case, in which 31 people, including four security persons, were killed and over 80 injured began on Thursday in-camera inside the Sabarmati Central Jail.

The witness told the court that religious heads from Hyderabad and Ahmedabad had converged at Riyadh and also took CDs of the riots that occurred in parts of Gujarat, sources said.

He informed the court that large amount of money was also collected from Riyadh for procuring material required to execute the attacks, including the well-planned one on the Akshardham temple.

The witness, a native of Gujarat and who claims that he was also "present" at the meeting, added that after the meeting some of those who had gone from India returned and visited Ahmedabad and Hyderabad to make further plans for the attack.

However, the execution of Akshardham temple attack was given to two Pakistani terrorists who were eventually gunned down by the National Security Guards after a nightlong gun battle on September 24, 2002.

Apart from the Akshardham attack four city transport buses were also targeted and bombs were planted which left some injured but no life was lost.

Balochistan : The talk about development is a diversion --Akbar Bugti

HARDtalk; “The talk about development is a diversion” —Akbar Bugti, chief of Jamhoori Watan Party

* Balochistan is not a signatory to the Constitution
* [BLA] struggle is for Baloch rights
* [Gas] is Balochistan’s produce, not ‘national’ asset
* Pakistan is a product of the law of necessity

Daily Times: You say you were the target?

Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti: Yes. Look, there were seven points from where intense fire came that day. From four of these, they were firing at my house, my bethak, my kutchery. Over 600 shells were fired, plus hundreds of thousands of machinegun bullets... large calibre, small calibre, everything. Over 600 mortar, cannon and RR shells. They also shot at us from helicopters.

DT: All that, according to the government, happened after your people created a serious law and order problem. Sui was attacked and supply of gas was disrupted for several days.

NABK: That is standard procedure for them (army). As they say, ulta chor kotwal ko dantay. Dr Goebbels said bigger the lie, the better chance of its being believed.

DT: The clashes must have been followed by arrest of your people.

NABK: Arrests are a routine thing...

DT: Have they released some or all of them? As a goodwill gesture?

NABK: No. There’s no goodwill. Or any other will.

DT: One assumed that release of your men must have been the first thing the government did as a result of the visits by Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain and Mushahid Hussain Syed to Dera Bugti to reach an understanding with you.

NABK: Not me, with people of Balochistan. They thought they could do that through me. I told them I had no mandate. That was their main concern... their Parliamentary Committee report or their recommendations... that I also should go along with it. I told them: “Sorry. That doesn’t concern me.”

DT: President Pervez Musharraf says that you, Sardar Mengal and Nawab Marri are the three Sardars opposing him; that the rest of the Balochistan is with him.

NABK: Quite right actually. Absolutely, 100 percent right. He said 70 Sardars were “sarkari” Sardars. They were with him. Then he amended that, saying it was 76 sardars. He can claim 200 and we will not object. But those who want their rights; those who are fighting for their rights; naturally, the government will call them the enemy.

DT: But there is a perception that the Sardars are responsible for the backwardness and poverty of the Baloch people.

NABK: Are we? Quite right. We are struggling for their rights all we get from the government is bullets and the shells. The plight of the people is borne out by government actions.

DT: Why don’t you seek a solution for your problems within the parameters of the Constitution?

NABK: Which Constituion?

DT: The 1973 Constitution.

NABK: According to international law, the 1973 Constitution does not apply to Balochistan. Why? Because Balochistan then had five elected members in parliament and three of them did not sign it. Two did. The majority did not sign the Constitution. The Constitution does not apply to Balochistan because Balochistan is not a signatory to it. Whatever they have been doing all along is unconstitutional, illegal and unlawful.

DT: Do support the demand for a constituent assembly to frame a new Constitution?

NABK: No. We had a Constitution Amendment Bill pending in the Senate for four or five years. We told Chaudhry Shujaat and Mushahid Husain there would be no need for a new constitution if they support the amendment. But they want to make some superficial changes and demand its acceptance at gunpoint. The Mushahid sub-committee report has come, but the Constitution sub-committee report is still awaited. They said certain changes could be made to the Concurrent List. We said Concurrent List was obsolete. It was finished 20 years ago. They wanted to give us some rubbish we don’t need but would not concede what we asked for. You will notice that when the Constitution sub-committee report comes out.

DT: The principal criticism of the Parliamentary Committee Report by Baloch leaders has been that it took over 270 days instead of the stipulated 90 days.

NABK: That doesn’t matter much. If you can’t do it in two months, you can take 10 months as long as something beneficial, something cogent comes out.

DT: Dr Abdul Hayee has said the committee took longer than the stipulated time.

NABK: That is Dr Hayee. He’s stressing the time factor. I am stressing the substance of the matter. The report lacks substance.

DT: President Musharraf says the government is focusing Balochistan. It has allocated Rs 10 billion in projects like Mekran Highway, Gwadar Port and Mirani Dam.

NABK: His focus is on Balochistan. But to destroy Balochistan and its people. To destroy those raising a voice for their rights, for what they produce. The focus is on destroying all this. That is true.

DT: Don’t you see the Baloch benefiting from the development plans for Balochistan?

NABK: What development plans? The talk about development plans is meant to divert people’s attention. We want them to agree to what our needs are. If you concede that, then you can say here’s 20, 10 or five billion rupees. If you continue to deny the fundamental rights, and offer a few rupees “ham tumhari hathely par bhikarion kee tarhaan rakhtay hain” then nobody is interested in it.

DT: What about the BLA and the BLF?

NABK: (Smiling) Go out [anywhere in Balochistan] and you will find them.

DT: Meaning?

NABK: Hold a placard inscribed with a message that you are looking for the Baloch Liberation Army; that you want to meet them; they will meet you. Yes, they will (sarcastically).

DT: I don’t understand.

NABK: If Jam Sahib [Chief Minister Jam Yusuf] can find them, why can’t you.

DT: Do you support them and their activities?

NABK: They are Baloch. They are my brothers. Every Baloch has sympathy for them. Their struggle is for Baloch rights. They are sacrificing their lives... What foolish Baloch will deny them and say: “Ham tumharay dushman hain.” Woh ya tau bohot bara gadha hoga ya ghaddar hoga.

DT: Even when they are destroying national assets and installations...

NABK: What installations?

DT: Sui installations, for example.

NABK: Sui installations are ours. Assuming, we destroy our own wealth, what business of yours is that? You are giving it a false name. We call it ‘national’ because it is ours. This is our produce. You have been stealing it. You are taking it [gas] by force. It is ours. Whatever name you give it — national installations, national asset, national museebat, national bala — doesn’t concern us. It is mine. It is ours.

DT: Are the proceeds from the sale of natural gas the real bone of contention between you and Islamabad?

NAKB: Payment of royalty is a constitutional requirement. Besides this, there are two other heads — development surcharge and excise duty. The proceeds from these come to five to six billion rupees. The largest amount is generated by development surcharge, followed by royalty and excise duty. These all go to the province or the provincial government. There is no question of these going to anybody else – me, for instance. We have never demanded any part of these three revenue heads. Our claim is that we, the Baloch, own the gas.

DT: Some Baloch leaders have said the government is trying to pitch the Baloch against the Pushtoon.

NABK: I don’t know. Ask them. Put this question to Sardar Mengal, Dr Abdul Hayee and Mahmood Khan Achakzai. They are the major parties [in PONM].

DT: Is there a Baloch versus Pushtoon conflict in Balochistan?

NABK: These are small things. Nothing in particular. But government is trying to.... unki koshish hay. Look, we believe the Baloch are living on their land, the Pakhtoon are living on theirs. There’s hardly any dispute until you come to Quetta and its surroundings. Beyond that go to the east or the west, everybody has been on the same land for hundred of centuries... there’s no dispute. The dispute is about Quetta and around it. That is the bone of contention.

DT: And it is going to be resolved?

NABK: I can’t say. Who is going to resolve it?

DT: The Pushtoon and the Baloch themselves.

NABK: Resolve what?

DT: The differences...

NABK: There are others who are there to make sure that there is no resolution. The government and government agencies, which are very powerful; they want to make sure that it is not resolved. The the dispute remains and its intensity increases... That is their strategy.

DT: What about your opposition to government plans to set up cantonments in Balochistan. There have been reports that the government has reviewed its decision of delaying the construction of cantonments in Sui, Kohlu and Gwadar.

NABK: They have started preliminary work in Sui. There are reports that they are erecting pillars and putting barbed wire to isolate 200 to 300 acres.

DT: Does this violate the understanding resulting from your talks with Chaudhry Shujaat and Mushahid Hussain? Didn’t they assure you the construction of cantonments was being delayed?

NABK: Which month or year are you referring to?

DT: Last year.

NABK: Chaudhry Shujaat and Mushahid Hussain didn’t say it. It was Tariq Aziz [the National Security Council secretary]. He had said: “we are for the moment deferring the construction of the cantonment”. That was last year. Since then they have started the preliminary work.

DT: How have you reacted to that work?

NABK: People don’t accept it. They don’t like it. This is [being done] by force of arms. Not by people’s consent. Not by dam, dalasa. Like Dr Shazia Khalid. She was raped. She did not consent to it.

DT: In her case, you wanted an army captain to be arrested and punished?

NABK: He should have been. I heard what she told BBC the other day. When she talked to a meeting in Houston, she wept. She was crying, saying she didn’t get justice. She was thrown out of the country while the rapist is in the country enjoying his life. She has confirmed what I have been saying. That he is the rapist. She couldn’t say this here. She was too frightened. Here, there was nobody out there for her. Any woman would be afraid of military goons. And she was sent packing. General Musharraf said the man was 100 percent innocent. We said he was 2,000 per cent guilty. But he was in uniform, a “paity bhai”... Now Mukhtar Mai, she was also raped; gang-raped by a number of men. They were arrested and sentenced. Because they are ordinary people. She’s from the Punjab and they, too, are from the Punjab. But here this woman is from Karachi, Sindh, a Memon. And the rapist is from the holy land of Punjab, the holy of holies of armed forces, a “paity bhai”. That is the reason. Was anybody punished for the rapes in Dhaka? Sheikh Mujib told me that over 100,000 women were raped. Did you catch anybody and put him in jail?

DT: In his recent interview to Daily Times, President Musharraf accused you of gross human rights violations, particularly against Bundhlanis, a sub-tribe of Kalpars. He said you have forced them to live in tents in inhuman conditions subsisting on a few hundred rupees a month the government doles out. He holds you responsible for their plight.

NABK: Has he said that?

DT: Yes. He said it on record in an interview with the DT Editor.

NABK: Generals are known for lying. Every general, particularly the Pakistani generals. They tell the baray say bara jhoot. They don’t even blink their eyes while levelling false allegations against people. This is their preserve. There is nothing new about it. You can go there and see. They are living in houses. May be rented ones, may be purchased ones. Some in better houses; some in bungalows. And they are getting their allowances.

DT: But the allowances are paltry.

NABK: In the days of Gen Babar — another general — they got about 60 to 70 million rupees from the Baitul Maal. It’s on record. We have got the photocopies. We produced these documents in the assembly where they hushed up the matter. Certain Baitul Maal officials had provided us the photocopies of cheques and other documents. They are also provided funds from the ISI budget. They are living comfortably. They are to be used when needed. Twice before, they have tried to use them. They are their weapon. These people are under death sentence from superior courts. They are proclaimed offenders. The government is providing shelter and paying allowances to those sought by the higher courts. Where is the rule of law? Where’s the General’s own rule of law? For one thing, he lies claiming they are in distress. They are not in distress.

DT: In your view, what is the future of this country?

NABK: The country has no future. Pakistan came into being under the law of necessity. Then in the ‘70s it broke up under the law of necessity. Today, it is struggling along under the law of necessity. It finally will come to an end under the law of necessity.

This is the second and concluding part of Nawab Bugti’s interview that he gave to Sarfaraz Ahmed, resident editor of Daily Times in Karachi

Ayodhya to London: Lessons learnt: Swapan Dasgupta

The comparison that Swapan makes between 5/7 Ayodhya terror attack and
7/7 London terror attack is valid. For, terrorism is terrorism, though
pundits may argue about varying shades of terror.

Methinks, what Swapan is focussing on is the marked contrast in
responding to terror befween, say, a Tony Blair and a Manmohan Singh;
between Conservative Party/Liberals of Britain and BJP/Commies of
Bharat, that is India. [I wouldn't go into speculating on the
scenarios Swapan tries to draw up just in case the failed Ayodhya
terror attack was NOT foiled by the quick reaction of the CRPF
soldiers, while certainly agreeing to praise their valour and action.]
But, it is worthwhile introspecting if a failed terror is less
diabolical than a successful terror attack?

Is there a link between the London terror attack and Ayodhya terror
attack? Yes, two links: both are terror attacks emanating from the
madarasa of terror, Pakistan and both are inspired by islamism's
advocacy of terror.

Pundits can pontificate if jihadi means terror, if victims should be
blamed for being soft on terror-factories of madarasa-s, if poverty is
a cop-out explanation while not possessing the integrity of conscience
to say that islamism is a terror religion, a false belief-system with
questionable revelations which should be taken out from the
communities imprisoned by the system which keeps on producing violent
terrorists. So is it a cop-out to mouth punditry of clash of
civilizations. How can the word civilization be used so loosely? It is
a clash created by two religions -- christism and islamism.It is a
clash created by a group of people claiming their right to eradicate
the kafirs or pagans from the face of the earth. Why not say so,

The crux of the problem is the abuse of the word 'secular'. What did
the Chairperson of UPA say in the first reaction to terror attack at
Ayodhya? That it was an attack on the 'secula'r fabric of the nation.
What is this 'secular' ma'am, is it so sacred that it is more sacred
than the tirthasthana of Ramajanmabhumi? Why has 'secular' become such
a sacred cow? Tony Blair or the conservatives or liberals didn't talk
of 'secular' in the wake of the London terror which happened just
happened two days after the Ayodhya terror. They instead started
talking about tightening up the laws to control on immigrations, to
pass new laws to prevent mullahs preaching terror.

After all, what will the mullahs do? They have to preach what the
Qu'ran says. It preaches terror, revelation after revelation.

What should the issues be? Bring back POTA? Close down the
madarasa-s? Take out the madarasa-s in the madarasa of terror,
Pakistan? Take steps to prevent the possibility of nuke material
getting into the hands of Khushaab Al Qaeda or International Islamic
Front operatives operating at Khushaab or Sargodha?

This may need some help and coordination among three sufferers of
terror attacks: USA (9/11), Britain (7/7) and Ayodhya (5/7).

Shouldn't these be the issues being debated on the media and later in
the Parliament (if it functions)?

Swapan makes the key point: national security should not be
politicised. That, madam, is a lot more sacred than the 'secular'
fraud camoulflaging communal flares.


(Pioneer, July 15, 2005)

It may sound callous but had it not been for the global outcry over
the serial blasts in London, the import of last Tuesday's foiled
attack on the Ram temple in Ayodhya would have been totally lost in
the din of partisan politics. It needed the dignified but categorical
assertion of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, not to mention some
pretty remarkable displays of Anglo-Saxon fortitude, to drive home to
Indians that it is neither alarmist nor an _expression of bad taste to
decry Islamic terrorism.

Of course, the articulation of outrage in both countries was markedly
different. Whereas Britain chose the life-as-usual approach to
demonstrate their contempt for the jihadis, the opposition in India
preferred a more boisterous, sound-bite centric course. The divergence
is indicative of different political cultures and need not be taken to
mean that Indian democracy is less evolved. At the same time, the BJP
did overshoot the proverbial Lakshman Rekha by making the Centre and
Uttar Pradesh Governments the targets of ire. Debating points needed
to be scored but a more reflective approach that stressed the dangers
to national security from Islamic and other forms of terrorism could
have won the party a more responsive audience.

Yet the frustration of those who were stunned by the audacity of the
jihadis is understandable. For 48 hours, till the London bombings
diverted attention, the country was treated to a dismal spectacle of
evasion and denial. The editorial classes directed flak at the BJP and
associates, as if Hindu activists were responsible for the assault on
the Temple.

They were taking their cue from a Government which acted on the
ridiculous assumption that the nature of the attack could somehow be
fudged by glossing over the religion of the terrorists. Unlike in
London, where ministers and the police have issued appeals to the
public for any information relating to anything suspicious they may
have observed, the Government hasn't even released computer-simulated
photographs of the slain terrorists.

The unmistakable impression is that the Government is panicky about
what the inquiries will reveal about the terrorists and the local
support networks that facilitated this audacious operation. May be,
there isn't a cover-up but there seems a concerted attempt at
concealment of information. We mustn't politicise the Ayodhya attack,
Sonia Gandhi has warned. Fair enough

Must we, therefore, politicise the investigations? Must we pretend
that the choice of Ayodhya as a target was dictated by nothing in
particular? The issue isn't entirely academic. Last Tuesday, the
terrorists came perilously close to blasting the makeshift Ram
temple. If a couple of the grenades hurled at the tarpaulin covering
had exploded or if the CRPF jawans hadn't been sufficiently quick in
their responses, India would have been confronted with horrific

Yes, a few communal outbreaks would probably have ensued. But the
danger wouldn't have stemmed from rioting alone. A far more delicate
problem would have arisen over what to do with the destroyed Ram
temple. There would have been sustained pressure on the Government
from the Left, the "hard"€secularists, the do-gooders and, no doubt,
many Muslim organisations to prevent another "makeshift" temple from
being created at the site.

Arguments, ranging from the aesthetic to the rational would have been
proffered in opposition to another Ram idol being installed. Who
knows, maybe a court would have instructed the state to desist from
any action till this new case was disposed of. To prevent the UPA
Government from collapsing, a dithering Congress would have fallen
back on a do-nothing approach, hoping, as always, that time would be a
great healer.

There would have been other consequences, including Indo-Pakistan
talks being put on hold, the possible outflow of billions of dollars
of Foreign Institutional Investment and the erosion of India's
competitive edge. Even these would have paled into insignificance by
the one overriding message the jihadis wanted to convey on July 5:
That terrorism works. The chilling thought: This was a message
particularly aimed at Indian Muslims.


Govt failed to protect Assam from external aggression: SC

Navin Upadhyay/ New Delhi

Polls in mind, UPA sets up GoM to subvert court order ----- Unmindful of the grim picture painted by the Supreme Court on Assam while ordering the scrapping of the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) ACT, 1983, the Centre on Thursday decided to set up a Group of Ministers (GoM) to hear "different shades" of views on the apex court's verdict and advise the Government on what needed to be done.

In setting up the GoM, which is bound to delay the implementation of the court's order, the Centre has ignored the accusing fingers pointed by the court on the Government's failure to protect Assam from "external aggression" due to continuance of the IMDT Act encouraging rampant illegal migration from Bangladesh.

The signals emanating from the UPA Government clearly indicates that the fallout of the apex court's order on the forthcoming Assam poll, and not the concern of national security, was uppermost in the mind of its decision-makers.

Sources said that the government was toying with the idea of bringing back the scrapped law through back door by inserting the controversial IMDT clause in the Foreigner's Act and once again put the onus for identification of illegal migrants on the complainants.

While, in words that vibrate with the grim threat posed to national security, the apex court said that illegal migration amounted to external aggression and was the root cause of insurgency, the Manmoahn Singh government strangely feels that to implement a court order it needed to go through the process of democratic consultation. In doing so, the UPA government is setting up new precedents.

"The GoM will hear the views of various parties and advise the Government for further action," Home Minister Shivraj Patil told reporters after a 90-minute meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Political Affairs chaired by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

What Mr Patil said is baffling, to say the least as there has never been any ambiguity in the stand of mainstream political parties and smaller regional outfits on the IMDT issue. And even during the last two days, political reactions have been along predictable lines.

The political overtones of the CCPA's decision is unmistakable. The decision follows a statement by Assam Chief Minister Tarun Gogoi that he will talk to the Centre to evolve an alternative mechanism in place of the IMDT Act. By setting up the GoM and awaiting its verdict before the implementation of the court's order, the Congress has tried to send a "favourable" message to its political votebank in Assam.

The sum and substance of the SC ruling projects a grim picture of the scenario prevailing in Assam. Striking down the IMDT Act as unconstitutional, a Bench of Chief Justice RC Lahoti, Justice GP Mathur and Justice PK Balasubramnyan said on Tuesday that the law on illegal migrants enacted by the Centre for Assam "negated the mandate" of Article 355 of the Constitution casting a duty on it to protect every state against external aggression and internal disturbance. The details of the judgment were made available to the media on Thursday.

The judges quoted at length from the report of then Assam Governor Lt Gen SK Sinha to the Centre in 1998 about migration changing the demography in several districts of the State and encouraging insurgency in the entire region.

"This being the situation there can be no manner of doubt that the State of Assam is facing external aggression and internal disturbance on account of large-scale illegal migration of Bangladesh nationals," Justice Mathur, writing the unanimous judgement, said. The influx of Bangladeshi nationals who have illegally migrated into Assam posed a threat to the integrity and security of the northeast region, the apex court added.

Describing the IMDT Act as the "main barrier" in identification and deportation of illegal migrants, the court said the Act came "to the advantage of such illegal migrants as any proceedings initiated against them under the said provision almost entirely ends in their favour, enables them to have a document having official sanctity to the effect that they are not illegal migrants."

The court said "the presence of such a large number of illegal migrants from Bangladesh, which runs into millions, is in fact an "aggression" on the State of Assam and has also contributed significantly in causing serious 'internal disturbances' in the shape of insurgency of alarming proportion making the life of people of Assam wholly insecure and the panic generated thereby has created a fear psychosis."

This has resulted in hampering the growth of the State of Assam although it has vast natural resources as people from the rest of the country have a general perception that it was a disturbed area curtailing the investment and employment opportunities, it said.

"The impact is such that it not only affects the State of Assam but it also affects its sister States like Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Nagaland etc., as the route to the said places passes through the State of Assam," Justice Mathur said. (The Court was of the opinion that by enacting the IMDT Act, Parliament had divested the Central Government of the power to remove migrants from Bangladesh, whose presence was creating serious law and order problem, which fact had been realized by the Central Government as early as 1950. "It is the foremost duty of the Central Government to protect its borders and prevent trespass of foreign nationals," Justice Mathur said but pointed out that the presence of the illegal migrants has changed the demographic character of that region and the local people of Assam have been reduced to the status of minority in certain districts.

"If an Act made by the legislature has the disastrous effect of giving shelter and protection to foreign nationals who have illegally transgressed the international border and are residing in India and further the Act is unconstitutional, any citizen is allowed to bring it to the notice of the Court," he said rejecting the state's plea challenging AGP MP Sarbanand Sonowal's locus standi. The court also said that the IMDT legislation violated the spirit of Article 14 guaranteeing right to equality, saying that the IMDT Act was enacted only for the State of Assam whereas a more stringent law under Foreigners Act was applicable to the rest of the country.

It said the provisions of Foreigner's Act were more effective in identification and deportation of foreigners who have illegally crossed the international border and have entered India without any authority of law and have no authority to

Russia-China axis emerges in Central Asia


Most international and Russian experts seem to appreciate the geostrategic significance of the recent Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit (see EDM, July 6, 7). The general consensus within the analytic community is that Beijing and Moscow have succeeded in turning the SCO into a rather effective tool to further their geopolitical interests in the strategic and energy-rich region of Central Asia. As the SCO's influence grows, American political and military clout in Central Asia will diminish, and Moscow will regain its dominant position in the region, according to the majority of Russian security analysts. But there is a dissenting view, arguing that it is China and not Russia that will likely be the principal beneficiary if the United States is pushed out of the former Soviet backyard.

The bulk of Russia's foreign policy specialists interpret the rallying of Central Asian states around what they call an emergent Russian-Chinese strategic axis as a clear sign of the regional leaders' bitter disillusionment with America. Since the waves of the "color revolutions" began sweeping the post-Soviet lands in the end of 2003, the Central Asian autocratic rulers grew increasingly suspicious of Washington's political designs and, naturally, became wary of the U.S. military presence in their territories.

Some Russian political pundits view the Andijan events as a crucial turning point in the changing of the region's geopolitical equation -- both in terms of the regional countries' strategic orientation and of their domestic policies. According to several policy papers penned recently by Russia's conservative political thinkers, following the political upheavals in Georgia, Ukraine, and Kyrgyzstan, as well as the violent riots in Uzbekistan, the Central Asian ruling clans appeared to have changed their perspective on a U.S. presence in Central Asia. Now the United States has likely come to be regarded as a "destabilizing factor rather than a necessary precondition for maintaining peace and security in the region."

The irritation, if not the outright fear, caused by the perceived American policy of regime change in post-Soviet Eurasia is taking on the form of an "institutionalized protest," as one commentary put it. In this context, all the recent Kremlin summitry -- the meeting between President Vladimir Putin and Chinese leader Hu Jintao, Uzbek president Islam Karimov's visit to Moscow, and the SCO gathering in Astana -- has seemingly indicated that a group of regional countries is engaged in setting up an "institutionalized counterweight to American hegemony and expansionism in Central Asia."

For many Moscow politicians and analysts, the current strengthening of the "eastern vector" of Russian foreign policy is the best possible way to restore the former superpower's shaken posture in its traditional sphere of influence. The Kremlin strategists appear particularly satisfied with the fact that their Central Asian allies, proceeding from the Russian political elite's favorite idea of geopolitical multipolarity, forcefully denounced efforts by any power to impose models of social development on other countries and, more importantly, demanded a deadline for closing the U.S. bases in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan (see EDM, July 14).

The new realignment of forces suggests that Moscow is likely to regain its geopolitical prestige in Central Asia, some regional experts contend. As one Kremlin-connected analyst notes gleefully, "There is an impression that U.S. foreign policy expansion has reached its limits and now there begins an epoch of the gradual decline of American empire."

For their part, the liberal analysts tend to explain what they call Russia's "eastward retreat" by directly linking this geopolitical orientation to the political philosophy that currently dominates the minds of the country's political elites. The Kremlin's wariness and suspicions of the West, quite similar to those shared by its Central Asian partners, coupled with the strong desire to preserve the political status quo and maintain the "continuity of power" at the top, have seriously influenced Russia's foreign policy course. Hence, Russia's gradual but consistent "drift away from Europe and toward Asia," some liberal-minded experts argue.

But even if Moscow does manage to increase its influence in Central Asia in the short-term, Beijing will likely be the biggest geopolitical winner in the long run, some analysts say. Russia, being China's junior partner, will inevitably be forced to gradually cede both its dominant position in the region and access to Central Asia's enormous energy resources to its much more powerful ally. Thus, what now appears to look like a return of the Soviet Union's "soft underbelly" to Mother Russia's fold is more accurately a slow but steady process of transformation of Central Asian region into Beijing's expanded zone of influence.

(Trud, July 8; RFE/RL, July 9; Asia Times, July 12; Komsomolskaya pravda, Vedomosti, July 13; Taipei Times, July 14)

--Igor Torbakov

July 14, 2005

A Glimpse into U.S. Strategic Thinking

The Mail Memo: A Glimpse into U.S. Strategic Thinking

By George Friedman

The Mail on Sunday, a British newspaper, recently published a memo that editors claimed had been leaked by a British official. The document, titled "Options for future UK force posture in Iraq" is dated 9 July 2005 and is marked "Secret-UK Eyes Only." The document was a working paper prepared for the Cabinet. What makes the memo extraordinarily important is that it contains a discussion of a substantial drawdown of British and American troops in Iraq, beginning in early 2006. Given the July 7 bombings in London, the memo has not attracted as much notice as normally would be expected. That is unfortunate because, if genuine, it provides a glimpse into U.S. strategic thinking and indicates a break point in the war.

It is always difficult to know whether documents such as this are genuine. In Britain, a steady trickle of classified documents has been leaked to the press during the past month, all of which appear to have been validated as authentic. That means that the idea of a classified document on this subject being leaked to the press is far from unprecedented. There has been ample time for Prime Minister Tony Blair or his government to deny the story, but they haven't. Finally, the document coheres with our analysis of the current situation on the ground in Iraq and the thinking in Washington. It makes sense. That's certainly the most dangerous way to validate a document; nevertheless, with the other indicators, we are comfortable with its authenticity.

The document printed by the Mail contains the following lines:

Emerging US plans assume that 14 out of 18 provinces could be handed over to Iraqi control by early 2006, allowing a reduction in overall MNF-I from 176,000 down to 66,000.

There is, however, a debate between the Pentagon/Centcom who favour a relatively bold reduction in force numbers, and MNF-I whose approach is more cautious.

The next MNF-I review of campaign progress due in late June may help clarify thinking and provide an agreed framework for the way ahead.

According to this document, the strategic view of the United States is that the insurrection in Iraq either never existed or has been brought under control in most of the country. Therefore, security in these areas can be turned over to Iraqis -- and, in some cases, already has been turned over. The memo states that the insurrection has not been brought under control in four provinces -- obviously, the hard-core Sunni provinces in central Iraq. Given this strategic reality, the MNF-I (Multinational Force-Iraq) could be reduced from 176,000 to 66,000. The implication here is that the reductions would begin in early 2006 and proceed through the year.

The memo also says there is a debate going on between the Pentagon and Central Command on the one side, and the command in Iraq on the other. The Iraq command feels that withdrawal would be premature. They logically want more boots on the ground for a longer period of time, because they are responsible for the reality in Iraq. The Pentagon, CENTCOM and, by implication, the White House, see, from a distance, a more hopeful situation. Therefore, a debate has broken out between the most senior command and the theater command. The report appears to have been written in the spring, as it speaks of a review by MNF-I in June. Certainly, no fundamental shift in the reality has taken place since then, and it would be reasonable to assume that the same intentions hold -- and that the command in Iraq still has serious reservations but that the president and secretary of defense probably have a good chance of prevailing.

It has been our view that the White House is not kidding when officials say they are optimistic about the situation in Iraq. What they see is a containment of the insurgency to a relatively small area of Iraq. They also see the guerrillas as split by inducements to the Sunni leadership to join the political process. The White House does not believe it has the situation under control in the four provinces, and the memo is quite frank in saying that Iraqi forces will not be able to take over security there. Nevertheless, the total number of troops needed to attempt to control the insurrection in those provinces is a small subset of the total number of forces deployed right now.

Behind this optimistic forecast, which appears reasonable to us, there lurks a more gloomy reality. The United States simply doesn't have the troops to maintain this level of commitment. The United States is rotating divisions in on a one-year-on, one-year-off basis. The ranks of the National Guard and reserves -- which, by the way, make up an increasingly large proportion of the active force -- are particularly thin, as commitments run out and older men and women with families choose not to re-enlist. Another couple of years of this, and the ranks of the regular forces would start emptying out.

Even more serious, the United States does not have the ability to deal with other crises. Within the geopolitical system, Washington reacts to crises. But should another theater of operations open up, the country would not have forces needed to deploy. Washington has acknowledged this by dropping the two-war doctrine, which argues that the United States should be able to fight two Iraq-size wars simultaneously. That doctrine has been fiction for a long time, but this is more than just a Pentagon debate over the obvious. No one would have imagined in the summer of 2001 that U.S. forces would be fighting a war in Afghanistan, and be deployed in Tajikistan or Uzbekistan. The United States fights not only with the army it has, but in the theaters that geopolitics gives it.

The fact is that the United States bit off more than it could chew militarily in Iraq. The administration did not anticipate the length and size of the deployment and took no steps to expand the force. That means that at the current level of commitment, the United States would be wide open elsewhere if a major war were to break out. The problem is not only troops -- although that isn't a trivial problem. The problem is the logistical support system, which has been strained to the limits supporting forces in Iraq. Many of the anecdotal failures, such as the lack of armoring for Hummers, happen in all wars. But the frequency of the problems and the length of time it took to fix them point out the fact that the pipe from the factory to the battlefield in Iraq was not sufficiently robust. Supporting two widely separated, large-scale operations would have been beyond U.S. ability.

That fact is of overriding concern to the United States. U.S. grand strategy assumes that the United States is capable of projecting force into Eurasia, as a deterrent to regional hegemons. At this point, that capability simply doesn't exist. The United States can sustain operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and maybe squeeze out a few brigades for operations elsewhere -- but that's all she wrote.

That puts the United States in the most dangerous position it has been in since before World War II. During Korea and Vietnam, the United States was able to deploy a substantial force in Europe as well as capabilities in the continental United States. Iraq, a smaller war than Vietnam, has, along with Afghanistan, essentially absorbed U.S. force projection capability. It cannot deploy a multi-divisional force elsewhere should it be needed. Should the unexpected happen in Asia or Europe, the United States would lack military and therefore diplomatic options.

The reason for this is not solely the Bush administration. The forces created during the 1990s were predicated on assumptions that proved not to be true. It was assumed that operations other than war, or peacekeeping operations, would be the dominant type of action. Multi-divisional, multi-theater operations were not anticipated. The force was shaped to reflect this belief.

The manner in which Bush chose to fight the war against the jihadists involved the invasion of Iraq using a conventional, multi-divisional thrust. The Bush administration took a calculated risk that this concentration of force could deal with the Iraq situation before another theater opened up. So far, the administration has been lucky. Despite having miscalculated the length of time of the war, no other theater except Afghanistan has become active enough to require forces to deploy.

But a lucky gambler should not stay at the table indefinitely. What the Mail memo is saying is that the administration is going to take some chips off the table in 2006 -- more than 100,000 chips. The importance of the drawdown is that it will allow the force some rest. But it still assumes that there will be no threats in Eurasia that the United States would have to respond to until 2007 at the earliest, and ideally not before 2008. That may be true, but given the history of the second half of the twentieth century, it is pushing the odds.

The strategic analysis about Iraq may well be sound. However, the MNF-I is fighting the drawdowns because it knows how fragile the political situation behind this analysis is. The debate will be framed in terms of the conditions in Iraq. But that is not, in our view, the primary driver behind plans for withdrawal. The driver is this: The United States simply cannot sustain the level of commitment it has made in Iraq without stripping itself of force-projection capabilities.

Given the fact that it is now obvious that the Bush administration is not going to undertake a substantial military buildup, it really has only two choices: Maintain its current posture and hope for the best, or draw down the forces in Iraq and hope for the best. The Iraq command, viewing Iraq, has chosen the first course. The Pentagon, looking at the world, is looking at the second. There are dangers inherent in both, but at this point, Iraq is becoming the lesser threat.
Send questions or comments on this article to analysis@stratfor.com.

Options for future UK force posture in Iraq

Paper by Secretary of State SECRET - UK EYES ONLY


We will need to reach decisions later this year on likely future UK force structure and disposition in Iraq into 2006.

This paper sets out some of the key contextual considerations; identifies areas of uncertainty; sets out what we know of US planning and possible expectations on the UK contribution; and assesses the potential impact on UK decision making.

2. Decisions on coalition, and within that, UK force levels will be governed by four factors, all of which are subject to a greater or lesser degree of uncertainty:
* Internal Iraqi pressure for further force posture changes.
* Successful progress in the potential process and extension/renewal of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1546. (Mail on Sunday footnote 1)
* The continued development of the capability of the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF).
* The security situation.

3. None of this, however, undermines the Multinational Force Iraq (MNF-I) (Mail on Sunday footnote 2)broad security strategy of:
a) Working with the Iraqis to contain and restrain the insurgency.
b) Assisting and encouraging the development of Iraqi security forces and structures which can progressively assume responsibility for all aspects of security including dealing with the insurgency, and thereby:
c) Enable MNF-I force reductions and eventual withdrawal.


US political military thinking is still evolving. But there is a strong US military desire for significant force reductions to bring relief to overall US commitment levels.

Emerging US plans assume that 14 out of 18 provinces could be handed over to Iraqi control by early 2006, allowing a reduction in overall MNF-I from 176,000 down to 66,000.

There is, however, a debate between the Pentagon/Centcom (Mail on Sunday footnote 3) who favour a relatively bold reduction in force numbers, and MNF-I whose approach is more cautious.

The next MNF-I review of campaign progress due in late June may help clarify thinking and provide an agreed framework for the way ahead.

5. (Technical details)


The current ministerially endorsed policy position is that the UK should not:
a) Agree to any changes to the UK area of responsibility.
b) Agree to any specific deployments outside Multinational Division South East. (Mail on Sunday footnote 4)
c) Agree to any specific increases in the roughly 8,500 UK service personnel currently deployed in Iraq.

7. Looking further ahead, we have a clear UK military aspiration to hand over to Iraqi control in Al Muthanna and Maysan provinces (Mail on Sunday footnote 5) in October 2005 and in the other two Multinational Division South East provinces, Dhi Qar and Basra (Mail on Sunday footnote 6) in April 2006.

This in turn should lead to a reduction in the total level of UK commitment in Iraq to around 3,000 personnel, ie small scale, by mid 2006.

This should lead to an estimated halving in the costs which fall to the reserve, (Mail on Sunday footnote 7) around £1 billion per annum currently. Though it is not clear exactly when this reduction might manifest itself, it would not be before around the end of 2006.

8. None of this however, represents a ministerially endorsed plan. There is a good deal more military analysis to do which is under way. We will need to consider handling of other MND SE allies.

The Japanese reconstruction battalion (Mail on Sunday footnote 8)will for example be reluctant to stay in Al Muthanna if force protection is solely provided by the Iraqis. The Australian position, which is highly influenced by the Japanese presence, may also be uncertain. (Mail on Sunday footnote 9)


I will bring further and more specific proposals to DOP-I (Mail on Sunday footnote 10) for the future UK force posture in Iraq, including handover to Iraqi control and subsequent UK military drawdown.

John Reid.

Mail on Sunday footnotes

Footnote 1:(UN resolution authorising allied troops presence in Iraq)
Footnote 2: (The Multinational Force of Allied troops in Iraq)
Footnote 3: (Centcom is the US military command centre in the US)
Footnote 4: (Not get involved in operations outside area around Basra under UK control)
Footnote 5: (two of the four provinces around Basra in UK control)
Footnote 6: (the other two UK run provinces)
Footnote 7: (The UK Treasury Reserve)
Footnote 8: (Japan has 550 engineers in UK area of Iraq)
Footnote 9: (Australia has 1,400 troops in Iraq ,whose main job is to protect the Japanese)
Footnote 10: (The Defence and Overseas Policy, Iraq sub committee of the Cabinet chaired by the Prime Minister)

Analysis: Secret memo has pullout plan

By Roland Flamini
UPI Chief International Correspondent
Published July 11, 2005

WASHINGTON -- Three days after the multiple bombing attacks in London a leaked secret document reveals that the British government is considering withdrawing troops from Iraq by the mid-2006. The Ministry of Defense said Monday the "Secret-Eyes Only" report was "just a discussion paper" and did not mean that there were actual plans for pulling out. But did the timing of the leak have any significance?

The Defense Ministry confirmed the authenticity of the document -- which is undated -- but at the same time tried to quash any notion that the government was sending a message to the Islamist terrorists that their demand for a troop pullout from Iraq was being met thus warding off further bomb attacks. The report was one of a number of option papers on the Iraq situation and the British role in it, the ministry was quoted as saying. Drawn up by Martin Howard, the ministry's director-general of policy planning and signed by Defense Secretary John Reid, it said troop strength would be cut from the current level of 8,500 to 3,000 by 2006. The London Times speculated Monday that the senior status of the author, combined with the fact that the report was signed by the Defense Secretary, "would suggest that the prospects of a troop withdrawal next year is now likely."

The group calling itself The Secret Organization of al-Qaida in Europe that claimed responsibility for Thursday's bombings in London, saying the attacks were retaliation for Britain's involvement in the U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, was hitherto unknown. But no one has challenged the general assumption that the attack was the work of an al-Qaida fringe organization.

Presumably, Labor Prime Minister Tony Blair's government wanted to avoid becoming the target of the kind of criticism it had itself leveled against Spain for pulling out it's troops from Iraq in the wake of the March 11, 2004 attack on commuter trains at Madrid's Atocha station. At the time the Spanish electorate had come under fire for dumping the ruling conservatives and electing a socialist government in an apparent post-attack panic in the national elections three days later, believing that the socialists would be more conciliatory towards the terrorists. In reality, pre-election polls showed that the conservatives had lost ground to the socialists anyway.

The Bush administration was even more scornful of the Spanish withdrawal, and has made no secret of its refusal to have any personal dealings with Socialist Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero. But Prime Minister Tony Blair is not likely to suffer the same fate: The same leaked British report reveals a "strong U.S. military desire" to cut back U.S. forces in Iraq from 138,000 to 66,000. The pullout was predicated on the Iraqi armed forces and police being able to take effective control of 14 out of Iraq's 18 provinces by early 2006 -- a target that seems unattainable to most experts.

In the past both Blair and President George Bush have refused to set a withdrawal date. Both have said their respective forces will remain in Iraq until the job of democratizing Iraq is completed. The secret document is the first time that a time frame for significant force reductions has been revealed.

Meanwhile, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi whose country may be the next terrorist target last weekend repeated earlier indications that Italy would begin its own troop withdrawals from Iraq in September. The Secret Organization of al-Qaida in Europe warned in its statement that Italy and Denmark could be the next terrorist targets. Italy has around 3,000 troops deployed in Iraq, and Denmark about 500. Berlusconi denied that the London bombings had conditioned his decision on the pullout; but he conceded that, "after New York, Madrid, and London, Italy represents the most probable next objective of the terrorists. The time has come to think about our house, and to use the same resources currently committed in Iraq to prevent and combat possible attacks in our country."

Over the weekend, the Rome government discussed virtually round the clock measures for strengthening security, particularly in the major cities. Rome, Milan and Turin have extensive metro services used daily by millions of commuters. All three cities also have large Islamic communities, particularly Milan. Security around the chalet in the Aosta Valley, where Pope Benedict XVI is spending a two-week vacation in the Italian Alps has also been beefed up, and the air space overhead declared out of bounds.

European intelligence sources are shaken by their British counterparts' failure to detect the London attacks, according to an Italian diplomatic source in Washington. In Europe, the British intelligence service has a reputation for good information, partly because of its special relationship with the CIA, and also good penetration. The Europeans are contrasting the apparent lack of progress in the British investigation with the swift work of the Spanish authorities following the Madrid terrorist bombing that claimed 190 lives and injured 1,500. But the Spanish police had an early break when they investigated a parked truck in a Madrid suburb and found a copy of the Koran, the Muslim holy book, and explosives. A month later, police raided an apartment in another suburb of the capital and exchanged fire with what they identified as a terrorist group linked to the attack. Some of the militants -- mostly Moroccans -- were arrested but others died when the apartment blew up. If the British have had a similar breakthrough they are keeping quiet about it.

Like the Spain, Italy and Britain are expected to re-direct troops from Iraq to Afghanistan to strengthen the NATO force there. So al-Qaida's success will be only partial. But the reduction of the terrorist threat will be nil.

Bollywood and Underworld Connections : 'Ash law abiding citizen hain'

About Bollywood and Underworld Connection

Ever wondered why all the heroes are Khans, and all the heroines are Hindus. Here is a transcript of conversation between Aishwarya Rai and Salman Khan as it appeated on Hindustan TImes.

The Salman Tapes

HT Mumbai Special

Mumbai, July 14, 2005

These telephone conversations between Salman Khan and Aishwarya Rai were recorded between August 28-30, 2001. Ash was supposed to leave for a long tour of the US. Salman starts calling her on the eve of her departure.

The conversations start friendly enough, but rapidly degenerate into threats, boasts and abuse. Following are excerpts from the Salman Tapes:

Aishwarya Rai: Hello.

Salman Khan: I want you to do the Abu Salem show. Hello?

SK: When I told you to do the Salem show you put the phone down. F**k you. You are doing the Salem show because of me. I asked you to the Salem show. You are not talking to me.

Ash: F**k you.

SK: You f***ing bitch. Are you doing the Salem show or not? I want to know whether you are doing the Salem show or not?

Ash: Oh really, you got drunk.

SK: Are you doing the Salem show or not? Abu Salem show or not? Abu Salem show or not?

Ash: Your phone is tapped.

SK: You know my phone is tapped. I want to save my own ass, you f***ing b***h. I would like to know whether you are doing the show or not.

Ash: Salman.

SK: No, tell me, you f***ing b***h whether you are doing the Salem show or not.

Ash: You're too late.

SK: You know Chori Chori Chupke Chupke? I was the only one who knew it was a Chhota Shakeel film.

Ash: Listen, listen. Now stop it, Salman.

SK: I will call up Salem and compromise. You don't know anything that is happening. It is a big bad world. You don't know the connectivity (sic) of the underworld.

No listen to me. Chori Chori Chupke Chupke was a Chhota Shakeel film. I was the only one who knew. Not even Nadeem Rizvi or Bharat Shah.

I did this role because I was scared of Chhota Shakeel... (Shakeel said) Yeh Mussalman aadmi hamara Hindustan ko agey lekar jayega. So I did Chhota Shakeel's film and that is what I had to do.

Ab mujhe Salem Saheb ke phone aa rahe hain.

Ab aap ke mere relationship hain. Jaise Dawood Bhai mere bade bhai ke relationship hain. Chhota Shakeel ka mere relationship hain. To aap ka hoga. We are hand in glove.

Ash: Hello?

SK: Abi aap ne disconnect nahin kiya. Itna information ley liya phone pe.

Ash: Hello?

Kyonke main underworld se taluk rakta hoon... mujhse contact nahin rakna? (They get disconnected)

SK: Phone nahin rakha. Mere liye point prove karne ke liye. Ha. Tum ne kabhi Salem se baat nahin kiya?

Ash. RAW hain jo mere conversation sun reha hain.

Dawood Ibrahim kuch nahin hai. Salem kuch nahin hain. Chhota Shakeel kuch nahin. Jo bhi hain woh main hoon.

Yeh muje malum hain ki Ash ka phone tapped hain. Is liye disconnect ho gaya. Muje malum hain mera phone tapped hain. Ash law abiding citizen hain. Unhone London airport mein phone guma diya. Kyonke main underworld se taluk rakta hoon. To mujse contact nahin rakna?

Ash: Ho Ho.

SK: You are trying to pretend you don't have to do anything with me. Suno mere bhai suno. Salman Khan, don't you dare...

Ash: Yeah?

SK: You had a problem. You call me up.

Ash: I called you up because I had a problem. SK: You never call me up otherwise. Anyway Ashji. You are going to be there for 47 days. Ok, 47 days my guys are there. They will watch what you do there like the last trip.

Ash: Salman Khan, don't you dare.

SK: Don't you dare f**k with me, Ash. I know Abu Salem, Chhota Shakeel, Dawood Ibrahim, Guru Satam...

SK: Underworld people call me up here. I am their main man in Bombay. I do all that s**t.

Ash: Stop it. Don't talk nonsense. You can get into trouble.

Ash: Ok, Christ.

SK: F**k you. F**k you. Don't use that language towards me.

Ash: Stop it.

SK: You use abusive language against me.

I know Abu Salem, Chhota Shakeel and I know Dawood Ibrahim and Chhota Rajan. I know Guru Satam and all these underworld people.

If I say ,"Aisi r***i ne mujhse aise baat ki", they will shoot you. Pehle baap ko maro m*******d, phir bhai ko maro, phir isko maro. Pehle pao pe maro, phir thigh pe maro, phir haat pe maro.

I have the power to do that. You know I can do that. It is a fact, it is a fact

SK: Because of my connection with the underworld Abu Salem will speak to you. I know all the people.

Ash: Salman Khan, stop all this rubbish. What is this?

SK: It is a fact, it is a fact.

First ever Hindu Human Rights report released

TAMPA, FL: The Hindu American Foundation (HAF) released today its first annual report on the status of Hindu human rights in Bangladesh, Pakistan and the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. Entitled “Hindus in Bangladesh, Pakistan and Kashmir: A survey of Human Rights 2004”, the report was prepared by HAF and compiles media coverage and first-hand accounts of human rights violations perpetrated against Hindus because of their religious identity.

The 71-page report was delivered prior to its release to the co-chairs of the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian-Americans, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) and Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY), who endorsed the report.

“The human rights violations that are occurring against Hindus must no longer be ignored without reprobation,” said Rep. Ros-Lehtinen after reviewing the HAF report. “Hindus have a history of being peaceful, pluralistic and understanding of other faiths and peoples, yet minority Hindus have endured decades of pain and suffering without the attention of the world.”

Nikhil Joshi, Esq., member of the HAF Board of Directors after discussing HAF's first annual human rights report with Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL).
Rep. Ackerman stressed the fundamental nature of religious freedom and supported the concept of the annual report produced by HAF. “The Hindu American Foundation has done some important work in this regard by compiling their 2004 Survey of Human Rights by helping to defend the rights of Hindus around the world to practice their religion without intimidation and by shining a light on those who would take away their religious freedoms,” said Rep. Ackerman in a statement distributed on July 12, 2005.

The Hindu human rights report—the first in what is to be an annual publication—was prepared, according to the HAF Board of Directors, to document a humanitarian tragedy largely omitted in reports by the United States State Department and larger human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. While these groups often mention the attacks on Hindus according to HAF, the group maintains that the massive scope of this human rights disaster requires the extensive coverage that this report provides.

“With over 600 documented attacks of murder, rape and physical intimidation of Hindus in Bangladesh, Pakistan and India’s state of Jammu and Kashmir last year alone, the ongoing atrocities against Hindus can no longer be ignored,” said Ramesh Rao, Ph.D., member of the HAF Executive Council who contributed to the report. “We are gratified that leaders in the U.S. Congress understand the magnitude of this tragedy and are determined to raise their voices in outrage.”

The report specifically denounces Bangladesh for a long-history of anti-Hindu atrocities that have recently spiked following the ascent of the Bangladeshi National Party-Jamat-e-Islami coalition. The decline of Hindus in Bangladesh from 30% of the population in 1947, to less than 10% today is analyzed in the report. The report alleges that the estimated loss of 20 million Bangladeshi Hindus is a consequence of an ongoing genocide and forced exodus.

“Persecution, discrimination and outright violence is the horrid reality for Hindus in Bangladesh today,” said Aseem Shukla, M.D., member of the HAF Board of Directors. “The international community must demand that the Bangladesh government immediately investigate the ongoing religious cleansing within its borders and empower minority and human rights commissions there.”

The HAF report also discusses the consequence of Pakistan and Al-Qaeda sponsored Islamist violence in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir that has left tens of thousands of Hindus and Muslims dead, and 350,000 Hindu victims of religious cleansing. Similarly, the Pakistan government is condemned for systematic state-sponsored religious discrimination against Hindus through elaborate “anti-blasphemy” laws, and for failing to investigate numerous reports of millions of Hindus being held as “bonded laborers” in slavery-like conditions.

“While HAF supports all efforts to bring lasting peace between India and Pakistan,” cautioned Sheetal D. Shah, member of the HAF Executive Council and a contributor to the HAF report, “Pakistan must continue to be held responsible for a recent upsurge in violence in the Kashmir valley, and even possibly on one of Hinduism’s most sacred shrines this month alone.”

HAF leaders were gratified by Congressional support for the report and discussed plans to follow-up the report in personal interactions with many other legislators planned later this year. A congressional resolution emphasizing aspects of the report is being actively discussed. Rep. Ros Lehtinen and Rep. Ackerman pledged to continue working with HAF on these human rights issues.

“I applaud the Hindu American Foundation for bringing awareness to this issue,” said Rep. Ros-Lehtinen. “I look forward to working with it to help address this scar on the international human rights community."

Rep. Ackerman discussed the obligation of Congress to speak out against international human rights abuses. “By working alongside organizations such as the Hindu American Foundation, we can help to ensure that violations to religious freedom are documented, and challenged across the world,” Rep. Ackerman added.

For further information, please contact Aseem Shukla, M.D., at aseem.shukla@hinduamericanfoundation.org or at 904-424-9442.

The full text of the first annual HAF Hindu human rights report is available at http://www.hinduamericanfoundation.org/HHR2004.pdf. The corresponding Executive Summary is below.

The human rights of Hindu citizens are consistently violated in three regions where Hindus constitute a minority: Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Jammu & Kashmir.


Over 400 documented attacks have taken place on Bangladeshi Hindus between January and November 2004.

These attacks include the day to day acts of murder, rape, kidnapping, temple destruction, and physical intimidation.

Hindus are labeled as “enemies” of Bangladesh. The Enemy Property Order II of 1965, under which property belonging to Hindus was identified as enemy property, was renamed as Vested Property Act in 1972, and under which, the Government of

Bangladesh vested itself with alleged enemy properties. Still in force, this Order of the President and the Enemy \ Vested Property Act has not been subjected to any judicial review.

Hindus, who comprised nearly 30% of Bangladesh’s population in 1947, now constitute less than 10% of the population.

By 1991, 20 million Hindus were unaccounted or “missing” according to expected population trends.


Hindus, who constituted between 15% and 24% of Pakistan’s population in 1947, now comprise less than 1.6% of the population.

Nearly 2 million people, many of them Hindus, are held as slaves in “bonded labor” in southern Pakistan.

Kidnapping of vulnerable Hindus is a well-established multi-million dollar industry.

Pakistan officially discriminates against non-Muslims through a variety of laws and strictures. Discriminatory laws include the “anti-blasphemy law” under which anyone who is accused of criticizing the Prophet Muhammad is imprisoned without trial for long periods of time, and mandatory religious identification in passports. Specific discriminatory laws are the Hudood Ordinance of 1979 (offence of Zina, offence of Qazaf, execution of punishment of whipping ordinance), the Qanoon-i-Shahadat Order of 1984 and Qisas & Diyat Ordinance (Section 306 C) of 1991.


Over 300,000 Kashmiri Hindus have been forced to leave due to ethnic cleansing abetted by Kashmiri Muslims.

These 300,000 Hindus are refugees in their own country, sheltered in temporary camps near Delhi and elsewhere.

More than 3,000 Hindu civilians have been killed, and thousands more Hindu police and army personnel have succumbed to terrorist violence.
There are virtually no Hindus left in the Kashmir Valley; they have all been driven out.


Of these regions, Bangladesh represents an ongoing crisis for Hindus and is of utmost immediate concern.

Human rights violations against Hindus are repeatedly ignored by human rights organizations such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and government commissions like the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom that routinely fail to specifically highlight the plight of Hindus in regions where they comprise a minority.

Minority and human rights commissions in these regions must be created and/or empowered to pressure the governments of these countries to provide security and uphold the rights of minority Hindus.
The international community must compel the governments of Pakistan, Bangladesh, and India to respect the human rights of Hindus as an urgent priority.

Baloch Society Of North America formally Launched , trouble for Pakistan

As we said in our earlier article that Balochs in North America are forming a new organization called "Baloch Society Of North America " , a Non-profit Organization , now it is officially launched . At

tits website http://www.BSO-NA.org , it states the organization is " working to unite and Organize all Baloch in North America, to expose the Occupation and Oppressive policies of Pakistani and Iranian Governments against Baloch people and our Baloch land (Balochistan), and to bring their Human Rights Violations in Balochistan into the world’s Notice. " . The website has picture of all baloch leaders and interviews of BSO leader Dr.Imad .

Dr. Wahid Baloch,the principle promoter of BSO-NA told IntelliBriefs , that general body meeting will be held on December 16th-18th, 2005 "after talking to many friends in US, Canada and overseas, based on their suggestions, we have decided to extend that date of our First General Body meeting Of BSO-NA from Aug 13-14 to December 16th-18th, 2005, so that we can finish the membership campaign and have enough time to prepare ourselves better for the meeting "

This meeting will be attended by guests from all over world by delaying " Also this will give enough time to our overseas guests to apply for the US visa and make travel arrangements. The invitation letters are ready and will be sent out soon to the participants. " said Dr.Wahid Baloch

Further the website stated that " July 15th is the "Shuada-e-Balochistan Day". Please don't forget the sacrifices made by our these Heroes for our great Nation. Let’s follow their footsteps and be resolut and determined in our fight against our enemies to save our Baloch Nation. Long live Balochistan and Long live Baloch Struggle for Freedom. "

In it's open letter to President of US , it accused Pakistan of occupying their lands and committed Human rights Violation . "From 1977-2005, Pakistan continues its crime against Baloch people. Thousand Baloch political activists and students have been arrested since then and are being tortured in secret jails. Many are missing, including Dr. Allah Nazar Baloch, Goher Baloch and Akther Nadeem Baloch. Pakistani military, paramilitary and security forces are given tasks to arrest, kidnap or kill any Baloch who talks or think about freedom. More than 600 military check post have been established all over Balochistan to control the activities and
movements of Baloch people. " .

Iranian government " has distorted political, economical and cultural development of Balochistan and insulted the human dignity of Baloch people. Religion is manifestly being used as a mean to assimilate Baloch nationality into Persian national identity. These basic realities have reinforced the Baloch’s general feeling of frustration and determination of having their own independent State. " , stated in that letter .

This organization is first of its kind which is aimed to educate leaders in North America about "pakistani and Iranian oppression " . IntelliBriefs sources said that Pakistan's commercial/strategic ties with China , particularly strategic Gawadhar project and US aversion to Chinese presence in that Strategic location , will enhance Baloch ties with US ,adding voice to their struggle. One possible move by Pakistan to suppress Baloch activism may be , to ask Chinese to quit from the project and invite US and UK to build the Gawadhar , as US and UK mentioned their intrest to participate in that project . It should be noted that recently many balochi leaders have met US ambassorore privately and officially and the discussions are not revealed in public . Pakistani authorities and intelligence has produced a report to MUsharraf on the nature of communication between Baloch Laders and US representatives .

The current Balochi Nationalists , younger generation in particular ,are educated in western capitals ,are smart enough to lobby , and were successful earlier to being their struggle to the world stage .

With washington's Oil intrests in Central asia , Balochistan will be the next focus point in the world theater , as many of the oil pipeline have to cross Balochistan to cater energy hungry India and south east asia . Balochis have stated openly that any pipeline to India via Balochistan will be at the "good will" of balochis , so India - US - Baloch nationalists nexus will play a major role in future .

Who were London bombers?

Less than a week after London was rocked by four blasts, details on the suicide bombers have started to surface. Police believe at least three British men of Pakistani origin carryed out the first attacks of their kind in the UK, which killed over 50 people. All the three were from Leeds area of Yorkshire.

Relatives of one them - Hasib Hussain - reported him missing hours after the bombings. This report led the police to investigate in his direction and discover his role in the attacks.

The Sun reported that British Premier, Tony Blair has been warned that 200 more home-grown bombers trained to carry out suicide attacks are living in Britain. They were all trained in al Qaeda camps in "Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria," the daily added.

Meanwhile, following are details, published on the London bombers by SkyNews:

Hasib Mir Hussain
19-year-old Hasib Mir Hussain was reported missing by his mother at 10.20pm on July 7, after failing to return home from London. He had told his parents that he was going to the capital on the day of the bombings with friends.

Hussain lived with his parents in a Leeds suburb. Hussain reportedly became very religious two years ago. His driving licence and cash cards were found in the mangled wreckage of the number 30 bus, which blew up in Tavistock Square and caused 13 deaths.

Mohamed Sadique Khan
Of Pakistani origin, the father-of-one was married to Hasina and their baby girl is thought to be about eight months old. Khan, 30, has worked with disabled children while his wife was involved in education.

A neighbour described Khan as a "quiet person". Documents belonging to Khan were found in the debris of the Edgware Road blast.

Shehzad Tanweer
Born on December 15 1982 in Bradford, Tanweer lived all his life in the area of Leeds. His father, Mohammed Mumtaz Tanweer, was born in Pakistan and owns a fish and chip shop.

Neighbours described Tanweer as a "good Muslim" who lived with his parents, his younger brother and two sisters.

Tanweer went to Lahore in Pakistan for two months earlier this year to study religion, but was "proud to be British". Sources said there was "strong" forensic evidence linking him to the blast on the Underground train near Aldgate.

Sunni group said it beheaded an Iranian security agent

A little-known Sunni group said it beheaded an Iranian security agent it had abducted last month in officially Shi'ite Iran and issued a video tape of the killing, Al Arabiya television said yesterday.

Al Arabiya said the Organisation of God's Soldiers for Sunni Mujahideen (Holy Fighters) in Iran had issued the tape, but the satellite channel would not air the footage of the killing. It broadcast parts of the video showing a masked man pushing the blindfolded hostage, identified as Shahab Mansouri, to the ground and another approaching him with a knife.

Al Arabiya said the Sunni group was headed by a man whose name was given as Abdul Malik Baluchi. The channel said he had appeared in the earlier tape questioning the hostage.

IntelliBriefs Analysis
The group leader introduced himself as Abdul Malik Al Blushi. They were in Balochi dress, called themselves "Jondollah" in Arabic (i. e. soldiers of God). but We don't know for sure that whether they were Baloch or not. Apparantly they were Baloch because such an incident happened last year or before that a group of Eurpean tourists were kidnapped by Baloch who might have been connected or had relations with Taliban and Al Qaeda. Delegates from European countries came to Tehran and asked Iranian authorities for their release. According to unconfirmed reports they were ready to pay ransom if asked for that. But interestingly the hostage takers instead of taking money for ransom demanded the release of Osama bin Laden's family (his wife and children or a son) from Iranian detention and their safe passage out of Iran. Iranian intelligence had their connection with a Baloch big businessman based in Dubai. His services were used for such a deal. After agreement between both parties through that businessman they struck the deal and sent Osama's family in a private or chartered flight to the required destination. In the light of this history we can believe that there are Sunni Baloch who want to express their grievances in this way by hostage taking or killing Iranian agents to pressure the government in Tehran.

One Source said it is not known whether these Baloch group or groups have their connection with Taliban and Osama bin Laden, Americans who have been training Baloch in Helmand (Afghani Balochistan), Pakistani intelligence who have been sending their spies under the cover of Tablighi Jamaa't to Iranian part of Balochistan for intelligence gathering and training such groups against Iran or they are a homegrown phenomena influenced by deobandi school of thaught and/or Taliban seminaris (madrasahs) of Moulana Fazlur Raman and Moulana Samihullah of MMA of Pakistan who have been and are training and brainwashing youths for jihad in Afghaninstan and now against Iran.

July 13, 2005

The Dynamics of Baloch Resistance in Pakistan

By: Dr. Naseer Dashti

The time comes in the life of any nation when there remain only two choices - submit or fight. For a majority of conscious Baloch that time has now come to Baloch people. A growing fear of cultural, economic and political domination has prompted an extensive discussion among Baloch nationalists in Pakistan for formulating a viable and feasible strategy for countering the ever-dominating maneuvers of the state. The discussion regarding participation in the legal and constitutional bodies of the state is a hot topic of discussion especially among youth and students. Baloch political elite are also conscious of far-reaching repercussions of recent political and strategic changes in the world polity in general and the region in particular. The nationalist leadership and groups in Balochistan are increasingly under pressure from different quarters to forge a united front of patriotic forces on a common minimum program of national salvation. The recent proposal by one of prominent Baloch nationalist leader Nawab Akber Bugti regarding the formation of a single Baloch political party is heatedly being debated throughout Balochistan and abroad. Whether a single party or a united front, it is a widely shared view among Baloch that there is a need to develop a common, united platform of all sections of the nationalist movement. This article is a brief discussion on the dynamics of the present phase of Baloch national struggle in Pakistan.

The Baloch National Question in Pakistan

The National Question concerns the oppression of one or a number of other people/s by a dominant colonial power. Consequently, the right to self-determination or to national independence exclusively can be claimed by the oppressed. Balochistan was conquered by force and is today ruled by force. At moments when the occupier feels itself threatened, it does not hesitate to use the gun. When the gun is not in use other devices are brought into play in an attempt to crush the Baloch people’s genuine political and economical aspirations and to mutilate the cultural and traditional values of Baloch people. These include legal and administrative terror, fear, social and economic pressures. Deliberate confusions are being generated by the propaganda of state machinery and the education system highlighting the grandeur of a non existing Islamic Umma and the “holy” Pakistani culture. Whether in reserve or in actual employment, brutal force is ever present and this has been so since the incorporation of Balochistan in to Pakistan in 1948.

Massive military crack downs of atrocious proportion waged against Baloch people in 1948, 1958, 1973 and the present military operation in Marri, Bugti, Jhalawan and Southern Balochistan is the latest in this series.
Attempts to the eradication of Baloch culture by denying education in mother tongue and superimposition of north Indian language and culture on Baloch people and non-acknowledgement of a Baloch existence as a separate national entity within Pakistan. The Pakistani national state has been adopting an approach of induced assimilation to the dominant nationality. National integration that is the creation to a novel Islamic nation from several ethnic nationalities as part of their nation-building efforts.
Gaining hold of the Baloch land by encouraging settlers from majority nationality to move to northern Balochistan, for example, in Quetta and Sibi in the past and the recent allotment and occupation of the thousands of acres of lands in the coastal belt and the planned settlement of 2.5 million people in Gwadar.
Subjugation tactics by the use of armed violence, state terror against Baloch, such as with the use of torture, selective killing of Baloch elite by fomenting intertribal and intra-tribal conflicts by various state agencies.
A ‘state of siege’ has been imposed on Balochistan through police, paramilitary and coast guard repressions.
Electing or selecting government functionaries have imposed an indirect or internal colonial rule by manipulating and under hand tactics of government agencies.
Keeping Balochistan intentionally backward while ruthlessly exploiting its natural resources for the benefit of majority nationality.
Encouraging fundamentalist religious elements allied with state establishment and funded and patronized by it to take over, in the long run the very fabric of a secular Baloch society.
In all the institutions of Pakistan, the Baloch are practically and statutorily excluded from the political, economical and cultural processes of the state. Political power, except for some marginally delegated powers to provinces, is explicitly the monopoly of the central government dominated by Punjabis. The Baloch people are being ruled as a conquered and colonized people. All of this is being rationalized on the basis of ideology of Pakistan, the core of this ideology is the conquest and domination of the minority nationalities of Pakistan, Baloch among those is the most exploited and oppressed.

Balochistan has been ruled in a manner of indirect colonial rule. Conquest and domination by an alien people, a system of discrimination and exploitation based on ethnicity, technique of indirect rule; are the traditional trappings of the classical colonial framework. From the very beginning Non-entities were duly crowned as “chiefs", of the different Baloch tribes by the state establishment in order to corner the genuine Baloch leadership. Parties were created in Balochistan to fragmentize Baloch society among middle, lower and upper classes. In the name of elections, agents of state security agencies were “elected or projected” as the representatives of Baloch masses. These "representative and leaders of Baloch masses" were and are being encouraged to enrich themselves by all means provided they are prepared to do the bidding of the state establishment. The so-called incorporation in the provincial power structure of some "Baloch" leaders is a thorough corruption of colonial traditions and merely an extension of majority domination by proxy. The system of proxy or indirect rule has been favored by many colonial powers throughout history. In the Pakistani context its purpose is creating a class of relatively privileged Balochs who would thus acquire a direct material interest in the preservation of the institutions of national domination at the expense of their own people. The fact that some of these collaborator tribal chiefs and leaders of so-called Baloch middle class could trace descent from those heads of tribes and other notables who sided with the Pakistani establishment from the very beginning is quite interesting. The state is also fostering and propagating non existing intertribal and intra-tribal rivalries among those Baloch tribes whose chiefs are leading the Baloch national struggle. This is to combat, not only the nationalist tribal chiefs with the help of their own people, but more importantly to crush, an inclusive, Baloch Nationalism.

The national question of Baloch is an old sociological reality historically constituted. Baloch never accepted the partition of their homeland Balochistan, in the aftermath of the unjust decisions of the boundary commissions reached between British Empire, Persia and Afghanistan during 19th century and annexation of Kalat State by Pakistan in 1948. The Baloch demand for self-rule constitutes a democratic pursuit that is incompatible with the despotism and religious-based nationalism of Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan. The Baloch resistance movements in Iran and Pakistan had all the same background - the will of national liberation. In the contemporary world many politically unstable African and Asian countries include disparate ethnic nationalities, frequently embattled because of national boundaries that were artificially drawn by European colonialists. In spite of the diversity of struggle in the 20th century, the Baloch struggle was for a purely nationalist agenda aiming to replace foreign rule by a native rule.

The Baloch Options

Baloch masses firmly believe that Baloch identity is more at peril than ever before. Baloch have suffered more than just national humiliation. Baloch people are deprived of their due in the country's wealth; their skills have been suppressed and poverty and starvation has been their life experience. The so-called democratic institutions such as district governments, provincial assemblies and federal bodies are a gross insult to Baloch national inspiration and mockery of federalism in Pakistan. These have proved in practice to be blind alleys serving mainly as a delaying tactic to ensure the prolongation of the period of Punjabi domination over Baloch and other nationalities. There is disillusionment among the majority of Baloch with the prospect of achieving national salvation by traditional peaceful processes. All lawful modes of expressing opposition to the domination and cultural and economical exploitation had been closed by the state, and Baloch are placed in a position in which they had either to accept a permanent state of inferiority, or to defy the state. Many politically active groups are in firm belief that under the highly sophisticated police state of Pakistan it is questionable whether a movement can succeed in a program of mass political organization beyond a certain point without starting a new type of action. And the only option left for them is to answer the state violence with armed resistance of the oppressed masses. But are the conditions favorable for an all out struggle including armed resistance by Baloch masses?

In the typical colonial-type situation armed resistance becomes feasible only if:

There is readiness to respond to the strategy of armed struggle with all the enormous sacrifices which this involves;
There is in existence a political leadership capable of gaining the organized allegiance of the people for armed struggle and which has both the experience and the ability to carry out the painstaking process of planning, preparation and overall conduct of the operations.
There exist favorable objective conditions in the international and regional polity.
From the time alien rule was imposed on Baloch people there has been - historically speaking - unbroken resistance to the domination. It has taken different forms at different times but it has never been abandoned. There were regular armed clashes, and battles. The superior material resources of the enemy, the divided and often fragmented nature of the resistance, the unchallenged ascendancy of imperialism as a world system, the historically understandable absence of political cohesion and leadership in the Baloch camp; these and other factors combined to end the past phases of Baloch resistance against foreign domination in defeat and confusion.

Regarding the support of the world community to their cause they believe that on international level a polarization of forces has occurred. There are forces of fundamentalism, and terrorism creating chaos and instability. There are forces which would like the world to be a safe place for all humanity acknowledging the birth right of different nations, nationalities and ethnic groups to be governed by the representatives of their own selection, in their own cultural and traditional ways. On the face of it major western powers such as Britain, Germany, France and the United States and Japan who have an enormous stake in the ongoing war against terrorism constitute a formidable support for the rogue state. Already they have done much to develop the economy and armament program of the state. But there is the wide spread belief among the political observers on international affairs that the support of western alliance to states like Pakistan with a fundamentalist establishment and nuclear potentials is a temporary one and a major strike by western powers is on card against such rogue states.

In one sense conditions are connected and interdependent. They are not created by subjective and ideological activity only. These conditions are brought about not only by developing political, economic and social conditions but also by the long hard grind of resistance movement. They depend on such factors as the response of the enemy, the strength and weaknesses of the enemy and the experience gained by the people themselves not in academic seminars but in actual political struggle. The new and apparently the final phase of struggle of Baloch people is taking place in the context of a new world political milieu, in which the fundamentalist and religious and rogue states are increasingly under pressure from world community to reform their social, economic and political systems. Baloch are part of the zone in which international pressure is highest on the countries where Baloch are being subjugated as a nationality.

Majority of the Baloch intellectuals and writers and conscious leadership believe this a deceitful excuse that the Baloch landmass is not capable of sustaining a protracted resistance. It is also not convincing for them that actual phase for the struggle for national rights is put off because they have not achieved an adequate level of preparation and organization. They also dispute the argument that the international situation is not favorable for a Baloch uprising. Many elements in nationalist circles believe that in the present world scenario what the Baloch as a nation must now do is to develop a program to be put into effect in the event of certain expectable and inevitable geo-political upheavals in the region. They believe in carrying out the struggle on the basis of an authentic Baloch identity and on the basis of right of self-determination.

The enemy is not invincible

The decades of indoctrination of state armed forces and the masses and deeply felt theoretical rationalization which centre on survival of the state on brute force will make enemy, the Baloch face, a ferocious and formidable foe. There is the reinforced feeling of confidence among Pakistani ruling elite that their fortress is impregnable and unassailable considering the state’s immense military power and nuclear capability. For the moment apparently, the Baloch face what is by and large a united and confident enemy and all significant sections of the dominant nationality are in broad agreement on the question of defeating Baloch struggle for national emancipation. Although it looks that the state is in stable command and can afford an enormous military budget. But if there is one lesson that the history of national liberation struggles has taught, it is that the material strength and resources of the enemy is by no means a decisive factor. Armed resistance by a suppressed people almost by definition presents a situation in which there is a vast imbalance of material and military resources between the opposing sides. It is designed to cope with the situation in which the enemy is infinitely superior in relation to every conventional factor of warfare. Protracted guerilla warfare is par excellence the weapon of the materially weak against the materially strong. Given its popular character and given a population which increasingly sides with and shields the armed insurgents whilst at the same time opposing and exposing the enemy, the survival and growth of an armed resistance is assured by the skilful exercise of tactics. Superior forces can thus be harassed, weakened and, in the end, destroyed. The absence of an orthodox front, of fighting lines; the need to protect the widely scattered installations on which the state economy is dependent; these are among the factors which serve in the long run to compensate in favor of the armed resistance for the disparity in the starting strength of the adversaries.

The mobilization of a large force in the course of a protracted struggle will place a further burden on the workings of the economy of the state. The most favorable factor concerning the confrontation of Baloch and state is that the enemy resources are all situated within the reach of Baloch resistance forces and theatre of war can easily be extended to the heartland of Punjab and there will remain no secure asset safe from sabotage, and armed action.

Physical environment which conforms to a special pattern is indispensable regarding arm resistance- thick jungle, inaccessible mountain areas, swamps, and a friendly border and so on. But guerrilla warfare can be, and has been, waged in every conceived type of terrain, in deserts, in farm fields, in built-up areas, in plains, in the bush and in countries without friendly borders or islands surrounded by the sea. This whole question is one of adjusting survival tactics to the sort of terrain in which operations have to be carried out. There might not appear to be a single impregnable mountain or impenetrable jungle but Baloch land abounds in terrain which in general is certainly no less favorable for guerrilla operations than some of the terrains in which other armed resistance movements operated successfully in Asia and Africa. Balochistan tremendous size will make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the occupational forces to keep the whole of it under armed surveillance in strength and in depth. It is necessary to stress these factors not only because they give balance to the efforts of Baloch nationalist forces but because - properly assessed - they help destroy the myth of the enemy's invincibility.

Political Control over Armed Resistance

To ignore the real situation and to play about with imaginary forces, concepts and ideals is to invite failure. The revolutionary-sounding phrase does not always reflect revolutionary policy, and revolutionary-sounding policy is not always the spring-board for revolutionary advance. Indeed what appears to be "militant" and "revolutionary" can often be counter-revolutionary. Untimely, ill planned or premature manifestations of violence impede and do not advance the prospect for the achievement of ultimate aim and are clearly counter-productive. It is obvious therefore that policy and organizational structures must grow out of the real situation if they are not to become meaningless clichés. The new phase of Baloch national struggle is occurring in a new situation. It is taking place in a different era and in a different context from those which characterized the early struggles. It is happening in a new kind of world - a world which is no longer bipolar.

The armed struggle is the political struggle by means which include the use of military force even though once force as a tactic is introduced it has the most far-reaching consequences on every aspect of a society or a movement. The riot, the street fight, the outburst of unorganized violence, individual terrorism; these are symptoms of the militant spirit but are not being appreciated in today’s international political milieu. The winning of freedom for a nation by armed struggle demands more than passion. It demands an understanding and an implementation of theory and techniques in the actual conditions facing the nation. It demands a sober assessment of the obstacles and an appreciation that such a struggle is bitter and protracted. It demands, too, the dominance in the general thinking among resistance cadres of achievement over drama.

Many experts on liberation struggle reject the approach which sees only the short-cut of isolated confrontations and the creation of armed resistance centers as the catalyst for revolutionary transformation of the oppressed masses. Also, it is not easy to determine the point at which sufficient concrete political and organizational preparations have been carried out to give the armed resistance pockets the maximum chances of survival and growth within any given area. There is no instrument for measuring this. But the importance of the subjective factors must not be overdone and before embarking upon a path which is in one sense tragic, although historically inevitable and necessary, certain of the basic minimum conditions already mentioned must be present and certain minimum preparations must have been made. It is important to emphasize this because national liberation movement must reject all manifestations of militarism which separates armed people's struggle from its political context.

Perhaps in today’s realities the dangers of the obsolete doctrines of 1950s and 1960s regarding the creation of armed resistance areas (foci) as the generator of mass resistance should be analyzed properly. One of the vital problems connected with this bears on the important question of the relationship between the political and military. There should be no ambiguity concerning this. The primacy of the political leadership should be unchallenged and supreme and all militant units should be subordinate to political leadership. This approach is borne out by the experience of the overwhelming majority of national liberation movements which have engaged in such struggle. With the historical background and traditions of Baloch resistance in Pakistan and Iran, within the memory of many people and the special developments of the immediate past, the involvement of the masses is unlikely to be the result of a sudden natural and automatic consequence of military clashes. It has to be won in all-round political mobilization accompanied with armed activities. This includes extensive counter propaganda and agitation throughout Baloch land and internationally to cope with the sophisticated torrent of misleading propaganda and disinformation of the enemy which will become more intense as the struggle sharpens. The masses have to be activated in a multitude of ways not only to ensure a growing stream of recruits for the fighting units but to harass the enemy politically so that his forces are dispersed and therefore weakened. This calls for the exercise of all-round political leadership.

The national liberation struggle is neither static nor does it take place in a vacuum. To believe that the course of struggle is determined solely by the fighting units involves the fallacious assumption that the masses are rock like and incorruptible and they will join the struggle automatically. The adversary is aware that the side wins the allegiance of the people, wins the struggle. In fact history proves that without the most intensive all-round political activity this is the more likely that the result may not be positive. It is therefore all the more vital that the leadership of the national liberation movement is nation-wide and has its roots both inside and outside the actual areas of combat. The confidence in final victory rests not on the wish or the dream but on the understanding of the prevailing conditions and the historical processes. This understanding must be deepened and must spread to every level of our society.

The Quest for a Baloch National Front

Politics of any kind is successful but only when backed by firm resoluteness, clear ideology and robust leadership. In the course of active defence who will lead the Baloch masses through this struggle? It is the most decisive issue. Policy could be realistic when it is based on the actual conditions of the people concerned and their enemy, and the world in general. It is, therefore, not the matter of one’s choice but that necessity that leadership should have correct assessment of any situation through close investigations. The leaders who are unable to adjust to the new mood of Baloch masses fell by the wayside. It is imperative that Baloch leadership and intelligentsia must recognise this hard fact that anyone who proposes to serve his people must not expect people to roll stones out of his way, but must accept his lot calmly if they even roll a few more upon it.

The solidarity of Baloch masses and leadership is necessary in the given circumstances. Political leadership must reason and act. In order to do so intelligently, they need to deal with and reason about this challenging situation. The intelligentsia and leadership will have to shed their scepticism; they will have to abandon grumbling and wavering on important national issues. They should be clear and loud and unambiguous on the question of our national identity and our right to rule. They have to reach the people and speak a language that the Baloch masses can appreciate and international community can understand.

How should the common enemy be confronted? What is the solution, and who should mount the charge? The historical responsibility rests on every patriot to call for a Baloch National Front - involving the total mobilization of all nationalist forces. Such a coalition would attract huge popular support. The cohesion and unity of action between the various national and social groupings comprising the National Front will reach new heights. All this will constitute not only moral justifications for a move towards a comprehensive and all out resistance movement, but, what is more important, conditions will be created making a departure in correct direction.

The program of this front must be reflective of the genuine needs and aspirations of Baloch masses. There should be no wavering between provincial autonomy and 1940 resolution etc. any more. The National Front should be of the conviction that both political and economic powers are inalienable rights of the people of Balochistan. Its mission therefore should be to contribute to the task of total political and economic emancipation of Baloch masses.
Keeping into account the skepticism of some leaders and groups regarding the “individuality syndrome” among Baloch leadership, the present initiative should not be an attempt to unify various factions into a single political party. However, the partners in the front should be prepared to address the question of unification and to promote ongoing debate and discussion on it and should keep the issue under review. Maintaining their separateness as political organizations, the various factions should develop collaboration politically and socially in order to bring the people of Balochistan closer together politically, to promote common understanding and ultimate unity.
The National Front should be committed to the development of democracy and freedom and the maintenance and protection of the right of the people of Balochistan to self-determination.
In the present circumstance the United Front of nationalists should not strive to win over the support of the established collaborators and opportunist leadership, rather it should concern the unity of the genuine nationalists themselves.
The National Front must not be a marriage of convenience but should be a political alliance based on a common, genuine regard for the achievement of the final aim of Baloch masses.
The National Front should have as its central issue the struggle against the opportunist ideology, which justifies capitulation.
It is also imperative to co-ordinate the activity of nationalist forces on the both side of Goldsmith Line.
The Baloch National Front should firmly believe in the organised power of the people as the motive force critical to the radical transformation of society and in our particular circumstances in the reconstruction of a new Baloch polity. It is only an organised people who can liberate themselves from political suppression and economic exploitation. It should be the embryo of a coalition of nationalists whose task should be to create conducive atmosphere under which all people are encouraged to participate in the struggle for their salvation.
The ideological creed of the Baloch National Front should be the creed of Baloch Nationalism. The Nationalism for which the national front should stands is the concept of freedom and prosperity for the Baloch people in their own land. It should be a struggle of the Baloch people, inspired by their own suffering and their own experience.

Baloch National Front should be the most consistent advocate of an inclusive Baloch nationhood rooted in the Baloch history and cultural traditions with an outlook of modernity and keeping in to account the realities and imperatives of 21st century world polity. Therefore, not only the substance but the form of structural creations must be in a way which the people can see - give expression to the main emphasis of the present stage of our struggle. This national front will definitely withstood the onslaught of state action and propaganda which sadly enough very often is carried out by or through some “Baloch leaders”, through ignorance and fear but worse through selfishness, assist the oppressors directly or indirectly and thus tend to sabotage, though ineffectively, the efforts of Baloch masses to realize freedom in their lifetime.

The history of the liberation of people from the domination of another nation has always been through a terrific struggle involving much sacrifice and suffering on the part of the oppressed and that, therefore, the oppressed can have no cause to believe that they can attain freedom otherwise. All over the world and through all ages, liberation has come that way. Experiences of past Pakistani actions and taking into account of mindset of majority nationality in Pakistan it is convincing to believe that an armed resistance movement would offer the state of Pakistan limitless opportunities for the indiscriminate slaughter of Baloch people. But many in Baloch circles are in the opinion that as Baloch land is already drenched with the blood of innocent Baloch that it is the duty of every Baloch, to make preparations as a long-term undertaking, to use force in order to defend them against force. The ideal of liberation of one’s people and land is cherish-able and worth fighting for and if needs be it is an ideal for which one should be prepared to die.