Pakistan slams West’s

handling of war on terror

Pakistan’s 9/11 happened some 30 years ago when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, Since then both Afghanistan and Pakistan are in the grip of bloody violence.

Every day some 70,000 to 75,000 Afghans cross over the Durand Line into Pakistan, they all look alike and every one of them could be mistaken for Taliban but they enter our country without let or hindrance on either side of the border.

The West and the US are turning a blind eye on the drug menace which is actually funding the Taliban war efforts. Afghanistan is the source of 93per cent of world’s drug supply which by the time it reaches the streets of Europe and the US turns into a bounty of over $38 billion and out of that at least about $3.8 billion reach the Taliban which they use for the purchase of sophisticated weaponry, the state of the art communications systems and costly jeeps on which they mount missiles.

The US, the NATO and the UK should plug the routes through which these drugs are smuggled out and the war equipment is smuggled in the Pak-Afghan border areas instead of asking Pakistan to do more.

Most of the weaponry being used by the Taliban is new, not the one used 30 years ago when the Soviets were occupying Afghanistan. We don’t know where they are coming from. We need our Nato friends to help us to find the source so that we could put a stop to it.

The ‘Harvard’ and ‘Oxford’ solutions are only creating resentment among the people of Pakistan against the US, Europe and the UK. Pakistan should be allowed to tackle the problem using ‘home grown’ solutions.

Pakistan and Afghanistan are two countries but one challenge.

Once again, Karachi is burning, and everyone has a theory. On April 29, at least 29 people were killed in an escalating wave of violence across the port city. Most of the dead were Pathan, though the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) also claimed losses. Even before funeral processions were organised and the last fires were doused, politicians began finger pointing.

Speaking from London, MQM chief Altaf Hussain appealed for peace, indirectly blaming the Taliban for the recent urban violence. He claimed that criminal elements belonging to the land and drug mafia were stirring trouble with the support – in the form of arms and money – of the Taliban. Meanwhile, Pakistan Muslim League chief Nawaz Sharif hinted at the ethnic dimensions of the clashes, pointing out that Karachi’s residents were being pitted against each other as part of a larger plot. For his part, Minister of State for Ports and Shipping, Nabeel Gabol, claimed that the fighting had been instigated by a ‘foreign agency’ that is working in collaboration with a religious party.

Outside political circles, there is an assumption that this week’s killings are the result of a long-standing ethnic rivalry between Karachi’s Urdu-speaking and Pashto-speaking communities. Newspaper reports, for example, have described the clashes as ‘ethnic violence’.

For almost a year, the MQM has been warning against the Talibanisation of Karachi.But members of Karachi’s Pashto-speaking community argue that the MQM is making no effort to distinguish between honest workers and militants. ‘The MQM is playing up the issue of Talibanisation for political gain'.In fact, ANP officials claim that the threat of Talibanisation in Karachi is being over-stated by the MQM. They point out that the Pashto-speaking community, which has been targeted by Taliban militants in Pakistan’s tribal and northern areas, is most at risk. ‘Who will they kill first?’

Three questions about Pakistan

The New York Times reports that Obama administration officials are increasingly worried about the Pakistani government's willingness to mount an effective defense against the Taliban. Although the Pakistani military is large and fairly well-equipped, it remains focused on defending the state against long-time rival India and is not well-prepared for a counter-insurgency campaign. Given that Pakistan reportedly has sixty or more nuclear weapons, the possibility of complete government collapse at some point in the future needs to be taken seriously, though other dangers may in fact be more likely. I don't know enough about the situation to offer firm answers on what we should do, but here are some questions and comments.

1. First, why is there so much disagreement about Pakistan's prospects among knowledgeable experts?

The dispute may also reflect different views on what the real danger is. Even if the Pakistani state doesn't fall, anti-Americanism and Taliban influence may continue to grow within the Pakistani population and within key institutions -- including the military -- thereby creating serious problems even if the country as a whole is not a "failed state."

As we saw in Iran in 1979 or in Eastern Europe in 1989, seemingly impregnable authoritarian governments sometimes come unglued quite quickly. At other times, however, apparently fragile regimes manage to stagger on for decades, because key institutions hold and the revolutionary bandwagon never gains sufficient momentum.

2. Will India Help?

If Americans are worried about Pakistan turning into a failed state, Indians ought to really concerned. How would you like a Talibanized Pakistan armed with nuclear weapons on your border? So instead of its traditional goal of trying to weaken Pakistan, you'd think India would be going to considerable lengths to shore up the Zadari government. Pakistan's military isn't strong enough to pose a conventional threat to India, and New Delhi ought to be looking for ways to allow Pakistan's armed forces to reorient their attention away from India and towards the real danger. This wouldn't a concession on India's part; it would be a smart strategy. But it would also require a level of foresight that few governments manage to display, so I ain't optimistic.

3. The Big Question: What is the best way to protect Pakistan's nuclear arsenal?

For Americans, the greatest concern regarding Pakistan's future is the possibility that its nuclear arsenal might fall into the hands of anti-American terrorists who might try to use one against the United States itself. I assume U.S. intelligence has gone to considerable lengths to figure out where Pakistan's warheads might be and that we have contingency plans for trying to secure them in the event of a state collapse. But any attempt to grab them by surprise, stealth or force would be a high-risk affair, and might trigger a very hostile reaction from within Pakistan itself. As one U.S. official said back in 2007, "it could be very messy." Another official involved in efforts to war game the U.S. response to this nightmare situation has admitted that "most of them don't end well." Moreover, the more that the Pakistani military worries about this possibility, the greater the risk that they move the warheads preemptively or take other actions to preclude that possibility.

In a perfect world, the United States would quietly establish connections to key figures within Pakistan's armed forces and work out arrangements for the U.S. (or conceivably some third party) to airlift the weapons out if it looked like bad guys might get their hands on them.

Unfortunately, rising anti-Americanism in Pakistan is probably making it harder for key officials to maintain close ties with the U.S. military or U.S. intelligence, and has made the generals in charge of their nuclear arsenal more reluctant to cooperate with us on issues of nuclear security. Indeed, given that the head of Pakistan's nuclear program, General Khalid Kidwai, has declared that their security arrangements are "foolproof," it's likely that some Pakistani leaders see us as a greater threat to their nuclear arsenal than the Taliban.

As David Sanger of the Times has reported, "Pakistani officials are understandably suspicious that the real intent of the American program [to help improve nuclear security] is to gather the information needed to snatch, or neutralize, the country's arsenal."

And if I haven't scared you enough, the real danger may not be state failure and a subsequent Taliban takeover. The more likely danger could be a progressive radicalization of the Pakistani military and the possibility of an "inside job," (i.e., the seizure of some part of the arsenal by anti-American radicals within the Pakistani armed forces).

A less immediate but still serious danger would be infiltration of the nuclear program by scientists sympathetic to radical forces, and the dissemination of information to them. So if our real concern is Pakistan's nuclear arsenal -- and it ought to be -- then we need to reverse the rising tide of anti-Americanism within Pakistan more generally.

And that's my last question: If nuclear security is our main concern, does the current emphasis on targeting suspected al Qaeda or Taliban leaders with Predators and Reapers really make strategic sense, if it inevitably leads to significant civilian deaths and reinforces anti-Americanism among the Pakistani population and possibly the armed forces as well?

Swine flu spreads to Middle East, Asia-Pacific

World health officials raised a global alert to an unprecedented level as swine flu was blamed for more deaths in Mexico and the epidemic crossed new borders, with the first cases confirmed Tuesday in the Middle East and the Asia-Pacific regions.

With the swine flu having already spread to at least six other countries, authorities around the globe are like firefighters battling a blaze without knowing how far it extends.

Symptoms include a fever of more than 100, coughing, joint aches, severe headache and, in some cases, vomiting and diarrhea.

Flu deaths are nothing new in the United States. The CDC estimates that about 36,000 people died of flu-related causes each year, on average, during the 1990s in the United States. But the new flu strain is a combination of pig, bird and human viruses that humans may have no natural immunity to.

Will Pakistan fall to the Taliban?

Pakistan is on a precipice, is how one politician described the situation, following news of the Taliban's advance into the country, which is covered heavily in today's broadsheets following international alarm over the development.

Declan Walsh writes in the Guardian that while the fall of Buner does not pose an immediate threat to the capital, the speed and aggression of the advance has prompted panic in the country's western allies.

One western diplomat told that a safe haven in the Swat valley could potentially be more dangerous than one in tribal areas close to the border because of better communications.
"There's a doomsday scenario where the real concern is that they establish a foothold in this part of northern Pakistan to launch attacks on Afghanistan, India and the west," he said.

But the Guardian is slightly more circumspect on the significance on its leader page.

"To the question: will Pakistan fall to the Taliban? The answer is that parts of the country have already fallen to them. But that does not mean Pakistan as a whole is in danger, even though there are fault lines running through the country and through the Punjab itself which the militants are exploiting.

"Relations between the US and Pakistan are at an impasse. Neither can abandon each other, but neither can deliver what the other really wants."
* Guardian: Taliban extends towards Islamabad
* Independent: Pakistan scrambles to repel Taliban advance
* Telegraph: Taliban creating 'safe haven' in heart of Pakistan

Pakistani company “Enabling Technologies” Designs world’s largest processor in terms of silicon density.

A Pakistani company, Enabling Technologies founded by Col. Dr. Shoaib Ahmad Khan (Sitara e Imtiaz) has designed the world’s largest processor in terms of silicon density. The Project team designed the world highest density media processor for carrier class voice processing system. The SoC can handle 2000 calls of G.711 or 624 calls of G.729a with line echo cancellation, voice activity detection, and comfort noise generation. SoC has 40 DSPs with embedded silicon RTOS taking care of the scheduling of different voice channels on these DSPs. A system based on this chip is installed in PTCL 17-enquiry exchange in Peshawar, Pakistan.http://www.case.edu.pk/DrShoabAKhan.aspx

Militants advance toward Islamabad
Concerns raised about Pakistan's vulnerability

Emboldened militants made their presence felt closer to Islamabad yesterday, raising fears in Pakistan and around the world that the capital and the nation were increasingly vulnerable.

The deteriorating situation prompted calls from foreign leaders and Pakistan-based diplomats urging the government to counter the growing threat.
The North-West Frontier Province dispatched a few hundred paramilitary forces yesterday to the district of Buner, about 60 miles from Islamabad, after Taliban forces took control of much of the area this week. Most were believed to have remained inside government buildings without engaging the militants, although there were unconfirmed reports of one policeman dying in a gunfight.

Taliban fighters from the nearby Swat Valley have infiltrated the area in recent days, emboldened by a government-sanctioned peace deal allowing them to enforce Sharia, or Islamic law, in the valley, a onetime tourist paradise.

Ghazal queen Iqbal Bano dies in Pakistan

One of the South Asia’s most loved ghazal, thumri and classical singers, Iqbal Bano, died on Tuesday at a local hospital in Lahore. She was 74.

Pride of Performance Award winner (1974), Iqbal Bano is best known for her ghazals and renditions of poems of famous poet and revolutionary, Faiz Ahmed Faiz.Born in Delhi in 1935, Iqbal Bano studied under Ustad Chaand Khan of the Delhi Gharana, an expert in all kinds of pure classical and light classical forms of vocal music.

Iqbal Bano migrated to Pakistan in the 1950's and was also associated with the country’s film industry.

She is remembered for singing the works of Faiz Ahmed Faiz and gave musical relevance to his the ghazals. At the height of the Zia era, Iqbal Bano sang at the Faiz Festival in Lahore to a crowd of 50,000.

Her rendition of Faiz's poem Hum Dekhenge caused quite a stir and also landed her in trouble with the military authorities. But this act also made her an immensely popular singer, breaking the boundaries that were imposed by the select audiences of classical music.

Despite her trouble with the military government which debarred her from official concerts, Iqbal Bano continued to sing for private audiences and soon after emerged on stage owing to her immense popularity in a wide section of Pakistani society. However, her failing health restricted her performances and by 2003 or so, her appearances were rare.

International Aid

It'll Cost More Than $5 Billion
To Save Pakistan

Aid For Pakistan Tops $5 Billion

The aid pledged at a Tokyo meeting to help save Pakistan from the Taliban is only the start, cautions President Obama's special representative, Richard Holbrooke.

The $5 billion in aid pledges collected by Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari at a donors' conference in Tokyo Friday was $1 billion more than the U.S. had expected. Nuclear-armed Pakistan, however, may need much more to buttress it against the instability wrought by the Taliban and other terrorist groups operating in its lawless Northwestern frontier, warned Richard Holbrooke, President Barack Obama's special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Charged with winning back hearts and minds from extremist groups, Holbrooke says, "$5 billion is not enough." Half of Pakistan's 175 million people live on $2 dollars or less a day, and its financial capital, Karachi, gets by on a few hours of electricity a day, he explained at a press conference in Tokyo Saturday before heading back to Washington. Holbrooke declined to put a price tag on saving Pakistan from the militants, but noted he has seen estimates as high as $50 billion.

America has given almost $20 billion to Pakistan since 2001, more than half of which went straight to the military as reimbursement for counterterrorism expenses. About a third has gone to the central government, but very little has made it out. Sometimes, the government funnels its third into weapons platforms for use against India, instead of economic infrastructure or social spending. Washington marks only 10% of aid to Pakistan for development goals like education.

One has no idea where it goes, we need to target it more to [economic] development and make sure there's a coherent distribution system in place. But if we get too pushy, it's more than what Pakistan, as a sovereign power would allow.

The best way to stabilize Pakistan would be to cultivate US trade with themand promote their trade with India. Trade—such as through easier access of textile exports to the U.S.—would bring capital into Pakistan outside the corrupt channels of government.

By opening Pakistani society to influences from abroad, trade will slowly decrease the power of the hawks in Pakistan. At the same time, to maintain and maximize gains from trade, civilian leaders will be forced to address the country's internal fiscal and judicial problems, to get Pakistan's house in order before trade can be sustainable.

The key error, is in interpreting terrorism as a symptom of a closed society, when it's in fact a direct response to, and rejection of, globalization. Pakistan is already a capable exporter, an exporter of violence.

India Pakistan War: Why it is not possible for India to follow Israel ?

There has been much speculation since Israel started bombarding the Hamas, questions have been asked as to why India does not follow suite and take it to Pakistan, I have asked my question myself but found it a bit difficult to understand, below is an article I found on Forbes which gives 5 reasons for a War agains Pakistan not being possible from an Indian perspective.

1. India is not a military Goliath in relation to Pakistan in the way Israel is to the Palestinian territories. India does not have the immunity, the confidence and the military free hand that result from an overwhelming military superiority over an opponent. Israel’s foe is a non-sovereign entity that enjoys the most precarious form of self-governance. Pakistan, for all its dysfunction, is a proper country with a proper army, superior by far to the tin-pot Arab forces that Israel has had to combat over time. Pakistan has nukes, to boot. Any assault on Pakistani territory carries with it an apocalyptic risk for India. This is, in fact, Pakistan’s trump card. (This explains, also, why Israel is determined to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran.)

2. Even if India could attack Pakistan without fear of nuclear retaliation, the rationale for “doing a Gaza” is, arguably, not fully present: Israel had been attacked consistently by the very force–Hamas–that was in political control of the territory from which the attacks occurred. By contrast, terrorist attacks on India, while originating in Pakistan, are not authored by the Pakistani government. India can– and does–contend that Pakistan’s government should shut down the terrorist training camps on Pakistani soil. (In this insistence, India has unequivocal support from Washington.) Yet only a consistent and demonstrable pattern of dereliction by Pakistani authorities– which would need to be dereliction verging on complicity with the terrorists–would furnish India with sufficient grounds to hold the Pakistani state culpable.

3. As our columnist, Karlyn Bowman, writes, Israel enjoys impressive support from the American people, in contrast to the Palestinians. No other state–apart, perhaps, from Britain–evokes as much favor in American public opinion as does Israel. This is not merely the result of the much-vaunted “Israel lobby” (to use a label deployed by its detractors), but also because of the very real depth of cultural interpenetration between American and Israeli society. This fraternal feeling buys Israel an enviable immunity in the conduct of its strategic defense. India, by contrast–while considerably more admired and favored in American public opinion than Pakistan–enjoys scarcely a fraction of Israel’s “pull” in Washington when it comes to questions of the use of force beyond its borders.

4. Pakistan is strategically significant to the United States; the Palestinians are not. This gives Washington scant incentive to rein in the Israelis, but a major incentive to rein in any Indian impulse to strike at Pakistan. However justified the Indian anger against Pakistan over the recent invasion of Mumbai by Pakistani terrorists, the last thing that the U.S. wants right now is an attack–no matter how surgical–by India against Pakistan-based terror camps. This would almost certainly result in a wholesale shift of Pakistani troops away from their western, Afghan front toward the eastern boundary with India–and would leave the American Afghan campaign in some considerable disarray, at least in the short term. So Washington has asked for, and received, the gift of Indian patience. And although India recognizes that it is not wholly without options to mobilize quickly for punitive, surgical strikes in a “strategic space,” it would–right now–settle for a trial of the accused terrorist leaders in U.S. courts. (Seven U.S. citizens were killed in Mumbai: Under U.S. law, those responsible–and this should include Pakistani intelligence masterminds–have to be brought to justice.)

5. My last, and meta-, point: Israel has the privilege of an international pariah to ignore international public opinion in its use of force against the Palestinians. A state with which few others have diplomatic relations can turn the tables on those that would anathematize it by saying, Hang diplomacy. India, by contrast, has no such luxury. It is a prisoner of its own global aspirations–and pretensions.

Article Source Tunku Varadarajan, a professor at the Stern Business School at NYU and research fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution, is opinions editor at Forbes.com, where he writes a weekly column.

...................

Pakistan would have attacked India in 1998


Pakistan would have launched a full-fledged air attack on India in 1998 if India had tried to stop the Pakistani nuclear test.

Gen Pervez Musharraf was appointed the Army chief because he was a Muhajir and thus would not stage a coup and Aimal Kasi, who attacked the CIA headquarters, was arrested by the CIA inside Pakistan and taken to Washington and Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan handled his case.

These and some other interesting facts about the Pakistani politics and the government have been revealed by former foreign minister Gohar Ayub Khan in his latest book titled ‘Testing Times as Foreign Minister’.

It reveals in the event of an attack on the test site at Chagai by India, attack by the PAF would have been launched on pre-selected targets in India. Pakistan had information and blueprints of the Indian nuclear projects given gratis after the 1984 attack on the Golden Temple, the book said.

Foreign intelligence agents were successful in placing an electronic sensing device shaped like a boulder with fibre covering close to the perimeter fence of Kahuta nuclear site, reveals the just launched book.

The book, however, said how long the device continued to work was unknown. But a young shepherd, who was grazing his sheep and goats in the area, while passing by this boulder gave it a hard knock with the back of his axe. A chunk of the disguised boulder fell and inside he found wiring.

It was reported and the device was removed. Whoever placed this device must have been very impressed by countermeasures Pakistan was taking for the security of Kahuta as their device was picked up, not knowing it was just a young shepherd boy whose axe did the trick, the book said.It added since Pakistan became a nuclear state, the chances of a nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan seem to be a very remote possibility but a localised conflict, which is maintained within a certain threshold and does not lead to an open war, cannot be ruled out in future. Tactical nuclear weapons could be used on a formation, which is poised to cut some vital area and has entered Pakistan.

The Americans and some other countries were aware of Pakistan’s determination to be a nuclear state.All efforts by us, saying our programme was for peaceful purposes, were not believed. The Americans would say that the Pakis were lying through their teeth. Foreign agents were very active during the mid-80s to get information on Kahuta and they placed the electronic device.

Yet another episode noted in the book is that India had four MIG-25Rs for high altitude reconnaissance. These aircraft could climb up to 81,000 ft. Pakistan had no fighter interceptor to climb to such height nor any ground-to- air anti-aircraft missiles to shoot such a plane down. These MIG-25Rs had a free run over Pakistan’s vital installations. The PAF had the F-104 Star Fighter which were designed to intercept high-flying Soviet bombers. They could go up to a height of 81,000 ft. These fighters had been phased out some years ago. The PAF knew that the Indian Air Force (IAF) had the MIG-25Rs and as such should have maintained some F-104 Star Fighter to be used as interceptors. The high-cost to maintain them should have been overruled as some could have been cannibalized for parts. In any case, spare parts for the F104 were easily available from some friendly countries.

Supporters of the claim that as a result of this regulation the girls of Swat will be able to go to school. That is a bad spin on a poor argument, if ever there was any. We have just signed a deal with a group of people who have been bombing and shutting down girls' schools in Swat because they were un-Islamic – and we want our people to believe that we signed it because it would have the benefit of reopening girls' schools. Of course they will not bomb these schools now – they do not need to. They get to just say that the schools are un-Islamic and the provincial administration is now bound to comply. We have just lent the support of the entire state machinery to their version of Islam.

The Taliban are the same people who think that polio vaccines are a form of birth control and need to be banned. They are the same people that locked up girls in the home during their rule in Afghanistan. These are the same people that have operated an entire system of madrasas in Pakistan for several years spewing hate against all those of a different religion or sect, as well as those who interpret differently.

These are the same people that think it is okay to buy children from their families with promises of heaven and strap them on with suicide vests. These are the same people that would behead you for growing poppy under their system but think it okay to cultivate and sell heroin to the world. On what basis are we expecting anything else to happen under their administration in Swat?Islam does not lie in the facade of those who claim it most loudly. It has to lie in the content of our actions. We have done much worse than just handing over territory to these people: we have handed over our religion to them. We have accepted that theirs is an Islamic system when we have been claiming that those who kill innocents can never be followers of Islam. Today, we have given these non-followers of Islam the license to interpret Islam.

The Nizam-e-Adl has done nothing to solve the problem and much to worsen it. The pressure has been taken off the Taliban and they are free to rearm and re-establish control in the area so the next time they will fight even harder. The group that has bombed our cities and terrorised our populace in the name of Allah continue to solidify themselves and we are all set to ignore that under the guise of this regulation. Much as one desperately hopes that one is wrong on this – the men in black will be back.

Finally, it is in this broader context that there has concern over and criticism of the Adl Regulation. The issue is not the Adl Regulation, instead, if the promise of it will be fulfilled-the promise that extends beyond the legal aspects. The promise will not be easily fulfilled. In fact, the expectations from it are highly unrealistic.

Pakistan Aid Effort Hits Saudi Hurdle

Saudis appear reluctant to pledge aid

The United States’ efforts to raise US$4-5 billion for Pakistan at an aid conference in Tokyo on Friday is coming into conflict with Saudi Arabia, which is showing only muted interest in supporting President Asif Ali Zardari, a major American newspaper reported on Wednesday. Citing officials involved in the deliberations, The Wall Street Journal said Riyadh had close ties with PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif, who had emerged as a serious challenger to Zardari.



The Obama administration is seeking to help Pakistan raise $4 billion to $5 billion at an international aid conference in Tokyo Friday in a bid to stabilize the finances of the key counterterrorism ally.

Washington's effort, however, is coming into conflict with Saudi Arabia, which is showing only muted interest in supporting Pakistani Prime Minister Asif Ali Zardari, according to people involved in the deliberations.



Riyadh has close ties with opposition leader Nawaz Sharif, who has emerged as a serious challenger to Mr. Zardari. Mr. Sharif, a former prime minister, spent much of nearly a decade in exile in Saudi Arabia, before returning to Pakistan in late 2007.

"The big outstanding question about the conference is Saudi Arabia," said a senior official involved in the aid discussions. "They are closely aligned with Sharif."

Pakistan appears certain to get at least $4 billion from the conference. If Saudi Arabia doesn't contribute to that total, it could undermine Islamabad's efforts to meet its financial obligations. Last November, Pakistan was forced to turn to the International Monetary Fund for $7.6 billion in loans to avert a balance-of-payments crisis.

A pass by Saudi Arabia would also send a signal that it doesn't support the Zardari government. Mr. Sharif's political capital has increased significantly since opposition protests last month led to concessions by Mr. Zardari -- including an invitation to join his party's government, which the opposition leader has so far declined.



Saudi Arabia has traditionally been among Pakistan's largest aid donors and strategic allies. During the 1980s, Saudi Arabia cooperated closely with Washington and Islamabad to expel Russian troops from Afghanistan.

In recent years, however, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia have taken differing positions on Pakistan's leadership. In late 2007, Riyadh negotiated a deal with former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, without seeking American consent, that allowed Mr. Sharif to return home, according to U.S. and Saudi officials.

The U.S. has long voiced skepticism about Mr. Sharif, citing his ties to Islamist parties. Mr. Zardari leads Pakistan's largest political party, which is secular and largely viewed as pro-Western.

Saudi officials have voiced reservations in general about providing aid through multilateral forums because of a lack of assurance on how the money will be spent. Saudi Arabia is also giving Pakistan 80,000 to 100,000 barrels of oil per day. With oil at around $50 per barrel, this equals roughly $5 million in aid per day.

Saudi Arabia is sending a delegation to the Tokyo conference, and an Arab diplomat said he would be "surprised" if Riyadh didn't pledge some money.

The U.S. and Japan are each expected to pledge $1 billion to Mr. Zardari's government Friday, according to the officials involved in the negotiations. The European Union, the U.K. and the United Arab Emirates are each expected to pledge as much as $500 million.

"This support is crucial to assure the Pakistani people that the international community is supporting its fight against extremism," said Husain Haqqani, Pakistan's ambassador to the U.S.

The Obama administration is developing benchmarks that Pakistan must meet to receive continued assistance, something Mr. Zardari's government is fighting. Washington wants to see Islamabad's sustained commitment to democracy and the fight against al Qaeda.

In addition to the $1 billion expected to be pledged Friday, the U.S. Congress has committed to provide $7.5 billion to Islamabad over the next five years, provided it meets these benchmarks.

Islamic Law Now Official for a Valley in Pakistan

US critical of Pakistan Islamic law deal in Swat

Afghanistan Concerned Over Pakistan Sharia Peace DealVoice of America - USA

President Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan has signed a measure that would impose Islamic law in the northwestern valley of Swat, in a move that was largely seen as a capitulation to Taliban militants.

Mr. Zardari’s approval came late Monday 13th April 2009, after Parliament voted overwhelmingly for the measure, which would allow militants to administer justice through courts whose judges have Islamic training.

Residents of the Swat Valley, once one of Pakistan’s most popular vacation spots, have been terrorized by militants from the Taliban, who human rights activists say are using Islam as an excuse to extend their own power.

The local government in Swat agreed in February to allow the militants to impose Islamic law in exchange for a cease-fire. The deal came after months of fighting, during which the Pakistani Army was unable to subdue the militants.

“The conflict is political, not religious,” said Ibn-e-Abduh Rehman, head of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan. “They don’t want Parliament, they don’t want elections, they don’t want judges.”

Pakistan seen as ‘caving in’ to Taliban threat

President Asif Ali Zardari’s decision to bow to Taliban demands and impose the Nizam-e-Adl in Malakand division was marked by the Al Qaeda-allied militants taking over Buner, just 60 miles from Islamabad.

The takeover in Buner, with almost no resistance from security forces, marked a major advance for the Taliban, a report published in The St Petersburg Time stated. It said the government’s endorsement of Islamic law further increased their political clout. In Washington, the Obama administration had no immediate comment.Most serious: According to the report, Pakistan constitutes the most serious security threat the US administration faces in light of the Taliban’s advance, the military's inability or unwillingness to combat them, the government's weakness and the country's economic crisis. The report notes that the decision to implement sharia came after parliament, under what amounted to a death threat from the Taliban, unanimously approved a resolution backing the move.

Position of defeat: The US has voiced concerns over the deal in Swat, as have members of Pakistan's small liberal elite. But politicians said they were left with few options after a band of Taliban defeated the army in Swat. "This (sharia) has been imposed from a position of defeat," said Iqbal Haider, a co-chairman of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP). "This is a formula for the Talibanisation of Pakistan."The report predicts that Western-style schools, where English is the language of instruction, could be the Taliban’s next target. Several schools in Islamabad closed on Monday, and others in Punjab, the country's most populous region, have beefed up their security.

Has America gone mad?

What an idea: joint US-Pakistan military operations in the tribal belt. If the "war on terror" policies pursued in Pakistan under the Bush administration have not already succeeded in making a complete mess of Pakistan, it seems that the action plan being evolved by the Obama administration will.

The idea that joint operations in the tribal areas can help eliminate militancy in the tribal belt represents such a flight of imagination that it is actually scary. It indicates that the US administration is simply clueless about the recruitment dynamics of Islamic militancy and also of the very basic characteristics of the Pashtoons. A sense of injustice is the primary mobilising tool for the Islamic groups, and "revenge" and "honour" are the two defining characteristics of the Pashtoon culture.

In such a context, military operations led by the Pakistani army themselves are enough to mobilise more resistance, adding the US military to it is a recipe for making Pakistan another Afghanistan. The real problem with the US planners and Pakistanis who are in favour of military operations as a solution to the militancy is that they refuse to understand how Islamic militants groups operate. They rely on a heavy moral discourse to justify their acts. It is a vocabulary of justice, of honour. The Pakistanis who went to fight in Afghanistan during the Soviet war were not mainly madrasa students, they came from all walks of life, many came from Pakistani universities. They went to Afghanistan because they were convinced of the injustice against Afghan Muslims.

The biggest concern however is that increasingly it is not clear why US is concerned about Pakistan. Is it actually that is fears an attack from likes of Baitullah Mesud or is it that after Sept 11, the US administration has to show the US public that it is doing something to fight Islamic militancy and having casualties in Pakistan just becomes a way of proving to the US citizens the government's resolve to protect them. Who were the Pakistanis who were killed in these operations, and how these operations are destabilising the Pakistani nation are in then questions better not asked.

Pakistani Taliban fighters uniting to take over Islamabad: reports

Taliban fighters from Pakistan's restive Swat valley have begun extending their influence to other areas even as a top militant commander said that the rebels would also take over the federal capital.Some 400 to 500 Taliban militants from Swat have taken over two villages near Buner, 100 km northwest of Islamabad, after two days of clashes with a 'lashkar' or tribal militia formed to stop their advance, TV channels reported today.

Militant commander Rizwan Bacha told Dawn News channel that Maulana Fazlullah, chief of the Taliban in Swat, had ordered them to remain in Buner despite calls from tribal elders for militants to leave the area. The Taliban have set up a base in Buner after torching several houses.A group of clerics is mediating with the Taliban and tribal elders after the two sides agreed to a ceasefire in Buner. At least eight militants, two members of the lashkar and three policemen died in clashes that erupted after the Taliban moved into Buner on Monday.Meanwhile, Pakistani Taliban commander Mullah Nazeer Ahmed said various militant factions had united to take over the federal capital."The day is not far when Islamabad will be in the hands of the mujahideen," he said in an interview with Al Qaidas media arm, Al-Sahab.

Tensions emerge in Pakistan-US relations
Trust Is Issue

The body language said it all.

The normally urbane and mild-mannered Pakistani Foreign Minister, Shah Mahmood Qureshi, was firm and spoke in categorical terms. Meanwhile, Richard Holbrooke chatted quietly with Admiral Mike Mullen - an act that, whatever the intention, was perceived as rude and contemptuous by those present.

The US special envoy and chairman of joint chiefs of staff were holding a press conference with Mr Qureshi after "frank" discussions.

They were on their first visit to Pakistan since Barak Obama unveiled his new strategy to fight the Afghan war. The American president has placed Pakistan firmly at the centre of it, stressing the importance of eliminating alleged al-Qaeda and Taleban "safe havens" in the country's border region near Afghanistan.

Mr Holbrooke and Adm Mullen had come to discuss the detail of the strategy and deepen co-operation. Instead, their visit highlighted quite publicly clear differences between Pakistani and American views.

"We're putting on as much pressure as the system can bear," he said, "but we're not beating up on anyone."

But the Pakistani perception is that they are. Both the army and the ISI have rigorously denied the charges. And a security source told the BBC that the Americans had been given a sharp message to back off.

The Army Chief of Staff, General Ashfaq Kiyani, explained that "this kind of criticism was in no way helping us".

At the root of this public discontent is Pakistani frustration with perceived American high-handedness.

Analysts say the army feels it's being treated like a hired gun. Dawn Newspaper echoed that sentiment: "The Pakistani stance came as a rude shock to the Americans, who had so far been taking the civilian and military leadership for granted."

"The bottom line," Mr Qureshi said at the press conference, "is the question of trust… We can only work together if we respect and trust each other. There is no other way, nothing else will work."

We are all Chand Bibi

Every woman who has ever been dictated to by a self-proclaimed guardian of faith, every woman who has been told to adopt others’ views on what modesty means knows what it is to be a Chand Bibi.

What we saw last week on our TV and computer screens was not simulated. It was not a documentary of a time gone by, nor was it a Hollywood movie that can be dismissed as being Orientalist and thus biased.

The spectacle, unfortunately, was reality — a reality that we have ignored for too long: the fact that people with a very demented view of religion are spreading like cancer in our country.These are men who use religion to justify hatred and misogynism. The three bearded Pashto-speaking men, who hold down Chand Bibi, a 17-year-old girl, and whip her publicly because a neighbour accused her of walking out of her house with a man who was neither her father nor her brother, are not mentally stable individuals.And yet they continue to terrorise our nation, murdering innocent men, women and children in the name of our religion.

Too many of us have been in denial for too long, writing off these men as aberrant isolated individuals in the north-west who have absolutely nothing to do with our lives. We need to think again. Swat is only 100 miles from Islamabad. And retreating into our ostrich-like behaviour is no longer a luxury we have. For in one way or another, we are all Chand Bibis.Every woman who has ever been subjected to the scrutiny of a man’s gaze, to approval from a male, his validation or even physical presence, without which we are often not respectable enough, is a Chand Bibi.

It was us as a nation that these hateful men were trying to terrorise; it was us as a nation that day that lay crying in the dirt.We must stand up for Chand Bibi because, whether we realise it or not, we are all connected.

And it is this connection, this unity of all being or Wahdat al wujud which Ibn Arabi wrote about, that makes a crime against a human a crime against God.The concept of Wahdat al wujud is enshrined in the Holy Quran which says, in Verse 5:32, that “If you save one life you save all of humanity; if you take one life, you kill all of humanity”.It is the state of interconnectedness described in this Verse that explains the relationship between God and His creation, one if studied further teaches us what a grave sin we commit every time we harm that which He has created.

For if God made us in His image, called us his ashraf ul makhlooqat and asked His angels to bow before us, if our hearts are said to be a “reflection of the Divine”, judging and then seeking to destroy each other is an incalculable transgression of the Divine will.“Do not kill women and children or an aged, infirm person”, said the Holy Prophet.

“Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees. Do not destroy an inhabited place... Do not be cowardly.”And yet it is these very sins that these people continue to commit in the name of religion. It is the essence of the message of spiritual liberty, enshrined in the Holy Quran, that they continue to desecrate.To go back to the 17-year-old girl who was flogged without a trial in Swat, an act that is in blatant disregard of our religion, we must stand up for her. We must stand up for Chand Bibi because, as Martin Niemoller wrote once,

First they came for the Communists,

and I didn’t speak up,because I wasn’t a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,

and I didn’t speak up,because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for the Catholics,

and I didn’t speak up,because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me,

and by that time there was no oneleft to speak up for me.

We must stand up for Chand Bibi because otherwise when they come for us, there will be nobody left to stand up for us.

Pakistan could collapse within 6 months: Report

Pakistan could collapse within six months in the face of snowballing insurgency, according to a top expert on guerrilla warfare. Such dire prediction was given by David Kilcullen, a former adviser to top US military commander General David H. Petraeus.Petraeus also echoed the same thought when he told a Congressional testimony last week that insurgency was one which could "take down" Pakistan, which is home to nuclear arms and al Qaeda.

Kilcullen's comments come as Pakistan is witnessing an unprecedented upswing in terrorists strikes and now some analysts in Pakistan and Washington are putting forward apocalyptic timetables for the country. In an analysis piece, the New York Times cast doubts about the success of President Barack Obama's strategy offering Pakistan a partnership to defeat insurgency, but the Pakistanis still consider India enemy number one.Officially, Pakistan's government welcomed Obama's strategy, with its hefty infusions of American money, hailing it as a "positive change", the paper said.

But as the Obama administration tries to bring Pakistanis to its side, large parts of the public, political class and the military have brushed off the plan, rebuffing the idea that the threat from al-Qaeda and the Taliban, which Washington calls a common enemy, is so urgent, it added.

India is going to collapse after this general election going by the alignments happening among the opportunistic political parties . Collapse will be faster than that of Pakistan. If Pakistan is faced with religious fanaticism ,India is facing with political opportunists . The new "fronts" which are nothing but a bunch of people who want to see India fail for their political goals .

INDIA CASTE SYSTEM WILL DISINTEGRATE INDIA INTO MANY STATES:If this caste politics is not checked at this stage, and no body can either stop caste system break up of India into pieces of Sikhism,budhism,islamism,chris tianism....than new states will be,Punjab--khalistankashmir-kashmiristanuttaranchal-paharhistanBihar-MoistanMadhya Pradesh& Andhra-naxalistanmaharashtrya-shiv senaistanArunachal& small states-in ChinaThanIndia will be only Uttar pradesh on world map .

The video that shook Pakistan

President Asif Ali Zardari has strongly condemned the flogging of a 17-year-old girl in public in Swat – where the government recently signed a peace deal with the Taliban – and ordered an inquiry into the matter. The incident has put the controversial Swat peace deal into jeopardy, with TV footage showing the Taliban mercilessly beating the girl – sparking outrage in Pakistan and abroad.

The Honourable Chief Justice of Pakistan has taken ‘suo moto’ notice of the flogging of a young woman in Swat. That is a good thing for sure.

Pakistan is shaken by the images of a 17-year-old girl being flogged in their own country, demonstrations were held against yet another indication of the Taliban rule swarming all over the country.The Supreme Court of Pakistan wants the government to take action. Meanwhile, the young girl clearly terrified, now says she was not beaten at all.

Pakistani hero bus driver honored in Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka's cricket community on Monday honored a Pakistani bus driver as a hero for risking his life to get Sri Lankan cricketers to safety as bullets pierced their vehicle in last month's deadly terror attack in eastern Pakistan."By God's help I did not feel scared at all and never thought of jumping out of the bus to save myself," Mohammad Khalil said through an interpreter at an elaborate ceremony at Sri Lanka Cricket headquarters.

Six police officers and a driver were killed and seven members of the Sri Lanka contingent wounded in Lahore on March 3 when more than a dozen heavily armed gunmen ambushed the team convoy en route to a match against Pakistan.

The attack was among the highest-profile terrorist strikes on a sports team since the 1972 Munich Olympics, when Palestinian militants killed 11 Israeli athletes.

Obama Outlines Sweeping Goal of Nuclear-Free World

Declaring the future of mankind at stake, President Barack Obama on Sunday said all nations must strive to rid the world of nuclear arms and that the U.S. had a "moral responsibility" to lead because no other country has used one.

On the broader anti-nuclear issue, more than 140 nations have ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. But 44 states that possess nuclear technology need to both sign and ratify it before it can take effect and only 35 have do so. The United States is among the holdouts, along with China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, North Korea, and Pakistan.

Emerging Pakistani miniature artists on show in US for first time

In the 1980s the National College of the Arts in Lahore, Pakistan revived the ancient traditional styles of painting from the Mughal, Deccani, Pahari, Rajput and Persian schools. In keeping with these traditions, artists are trained in a precise, exquisitely detailed style of painting that begins with the meticulous crushing and preparing of pigments and other materials, such as hand made paper hand threaded brushes.

Madassar Manzoor and Attiya Shaukat are two up and coming artists from this school, both working with contemporary and often deeply conflicted themes. Together, the artists will contribute a total of fifteen new miniature paintings.

This exhibition marks their first showing in the United States.

Indian contemporary art is hotter than ever, but globalization is also giving a lift to artists from neighboring Pakistan says the New York Times in its review of a show featuring three female artists at Aicon Gallery in New York which ended January 11 2009 .

Farida Batool, Tazeen Qayyum, and Adeela Suleman were presented in its recently relocated space on 35 Great Jones Street during a time of great political upheaval for the country. The three women’s artistic practices speak to the role of women and Pakistan’s tumultuous recent history.

Pakistan remains a roadblock for U.S. in Central Asian affairs

The United States has the cooperation of Afghanistan, which once harbored Al Qaeda, but has limited ability to maneuver in neighboring Pakistan, where the terrorist group is now based.

President Obama's plan to create a unified U.S. strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan marks his effort to sever his administration's approach from the failures of the past. But administration officials are struggling to identify a clear path around the problem that has undermined U.S. policy in those countries for much of the last seven years: The United States can operate freely in Afghanistan, where Al Qaeda used to be based, but has limited ability to control what happens in neighboring Pakistan, which the terrorist network now calls home.

In Afghanistan, the United States is poised to send an additional 21,000 troops and to train thousands of Afghan soldiers and police officers, while working directly with the government to bring corruption under control.

In Pakistan, however, the U.S. approach hinges on providing an extra $5 billion in aid over the next five years and leaning on Islamabad to take steps against the Islamic militants that it has so far been unwilling, or unable, to carry out.

In some ways, the rollout of the strategy last week marked the beginning of a concerted effort to increase pressure on Pakistan.

Obama described the country's border region as "the most dangerous place in the world," and warned that the United States' patience was wearing thin after Washington provided more than $12 billion in aid to Islamabad over seven years only to see Al Qaeda remain intact.

Pakistan's activities remain a mystery to folks in Washington. That makes it fairly difficult to find legislative language that would address this concern.

Even after the Obama administration's recent high-level discussions with Pakistan over the new strategy, U.S. intelligence officials said Islamabad continued to foster relationships with Islamic militant groups that it helped organize with U.S. support in the 1980s.

Obama: India, Pakistan's enemy should be poverty

President Barack Obama says India and Pakistan's greatest enemy should be poverty, not each other.

He met with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh at the G-20 meeting in London Thursday, and later told a news conference that he suggested it would "make sense" for the two nuclear-armed neighbors to have "a more effective dialogue."

Obama says they discussed the terrorism emanating from Pakistan, but focused more broadly on how the U.S. and India can cooperate on counterterrorism.
Obama described Singh as a "wise and decent man" who has done a "wonderful job" guiding India on a path of economic growth.

US President Barack Obama called for a dialogue process between India and Pakistan but Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said that a “minimum pre-condition” was that Islamabad should not allow its soil to be used to promote terrorism.

Asked after their first substantive meeting, that lasted an hour, whether India was willing to talk with Pakistan on Kashmir, the Prime Minister said: “We are willing to discuss bilaterally all the issues that bedevil the two countries. This cannot proceed if hundreds of people die like they did in the Mumbai attack.”

Afghan President Signs Law

"Legalizing Rape"

Karzai rushed the new Shia Family Law through parliament in a shameless bid to win votes in advance of national elections. Read more »

Terrible news out of Afghanistan: Afghan President Hamid Karzai has rushed through a law that "negates the need for sexual consent between married couples, tacitly approves child marriage and restricts a woman's right to leave the home."

According to an Independent UK article posted, the Shia Family Law:
Regulates personal matters like marriage, divorce, inheritance and sexual relations among Afghanistan's minority Shia community.
...
The provisions are reminiscent of the hardline Taliban regime, which banned women from leaving their homes without a male relative. But in a sign of Afghanistan's faltering steps towards gender equality, politicians who opposed it have been threatened.

Afghanistan's President, Hamid Karzai, has signed a law which "legalizes" rape, women's groups and the United Nations warn. Critics claim the president helped rush the bill through parliament in a bid to appease Islamic fundamentalists ahead of elections in August.

In a massive blow for women's rights, the new Shia Family Law negates the need for sexual consent between married couples, tacitly approves child marriage and restricts a woman's right to leave the home, according to UN papers seen by The Independent.

"It is one of the worst bills passed by the parliament this century," fumed Shinkai Karokhail, a woman MP who campaigned against the legislation. "It is totally against women's rights. This law makes women more vulnerable."

The law regulates personal matters like marriage, divorce, inheritance and sexual relations among Afghanistan's minority Shia community. "It's about votes," Ms. Karokhail added. "Karzai is in a hurry to appease the Shia because the elections are on the way."

A report by the United Nations Development Fund for Women, Unifem, warned: "Article 132 legalizes the rape of a wife by her husband".