Stephen Cohen a known Indophile who created the now debunked “Cold Start Strategy” has clearly said that the India and the US are strategically moving apart. This assessment comes in the wake of the reality that America’s new banker is not New York—it is Beijing. Prime Minister Manamohan Singh sheepishly mentioned this anomaly during his various conversations in Washington and elsewhere. While the chest thumping on democracy fell on deaf ears, what chagrined the prime minister and Bharati media was the fact that the US has ignored Delhi’s whining on Mumbai. Contrary to the lobbying efforts of Delhi, the US Congress tripled aid to Pakistan, and then some—it is also working on ROZ and a FTA with Pakistan. Unbeknownst to Delhi, the US Army has helped the generals in Islamabad with weapons that are under the radar or press and or media scrutiny.
While “more Catholic than the Pope” (more Brahman than the monks in Benaras) Indophiles in the ranks of obsequies dawn.com (Anwar Iqbal—though he is not the only one) are trumpeting the Manmohan trip to Washington as the anointment of Bharat as a superpower---back in the Vatican (or Benaras in this theme) the Bharati media is very aware of the realities. This is not the Clinton or Bush presidency. It is also a different place on the timeline of history. Under the old discarded doctrine India was to be built as a counterweight to China. There is a frenzy in the Neocon ranks for this---the reality in today's world does not allow playing India against China. President Obama’s constrained reality is the financial collapse and the anemic US economy that is not creating jobs, or creating wealth for Americans. While China holds $1 trillion or more of US T-bills, is three times the economy of Bharat, and has an export surplus with the US, and Europe that can only be a wish for the tine $42 billion IT industry out of Banglore that affects only 6 million people.
Most Washington analysts today realize that Bharat is an important country, but it is getting too big for its britches. With a creaky economy (last decade not withstanding), an atrocious infrastructure, mind numbing penury, horrid caste infestation, a superiority complex (which is psychological terms is actually an inferiority complex), and the propensity to dominate all her neighbors, Bharat has reduced itself to a regional state where all countries surrounding it hate her. While China has developed goodwill, friendship and admiration neighbors near and far, Delhi’s policies only conjures up hate and resistance to hegemony. Bharat has unending hatred towards Delhi in Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim, Kashmir, Lanka, Maldives and even Bangladesh (which it created). Its biggest successes have become its biggest cancers. Kashmir and Bangaldesh thumb their noses at Delhi. Pakistan is a nuclear powered state and has successfully maneuvered itself into the good graces of both the USA and China—with the neutral Russian making overtures—because of China. As a major Non-Nato Ally it has superb relations with Europe and is working on Free Trade Agreements with all three. today Unless and until Delhi learns the norms on how to behave in an international arena, it will never have a voice in world affairs.
In this prodigiously written article, the Christian Science Monitor presents of sample of Bharati thinking.
President Barack Obama meets with India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh at the G-20 summit at the ExCel Centre in London in this April 2 file photo.
Charles Dharapak/AP/File
New Delhi - As India's prime minister Manmohan Singh arrives to a red carpet welcome in Washington Monday – the first state guest of President Barack Obama – commentators in India seemed more preoccupied with the United States' growing friendship with China.
Ties between India and the US are stronger than they have been in decades. Bilateral trade has surged, doubling since 2004 to more than $43 billion a year. Last year the two countries signed a landmark civil nuclear deal, agreed upon by Mr. Singh and former US President George Bush in 2005, that brought India out of nuclear isolation and symbolized a sea change in the countries' political relationship. Indeed, the US sees a vital role for India in the battle against terrorism in Pakistan and Afghanistan and in a host of other issues from world trade to climate change.
But while talks between Mr. Singh and Mr. Obama scheduled for Tuesday are likely to focus on such matters as Afghanistan, climate change, and cooperation on nuclear energy, pundits in India are more interested in the question of where the US's new friendship with China, as well as its relationship with Pakistan, leaves India.
"We may aspire to a seat at the high table of world power but China is already sitting at the head of the table along with the United States," wrote journalist Gautam Adhikari in the Times of India Monday. "It has enough IOUs in its pocket to stop anyone from pushing it around. We also are a billion-strong nation, a democracy to boot and growing economically at a still impressive rate given the global conditions. But, realistically speaking, we are a second or perhaps third tier force in the eyes of the United States."
A recent joint statement from Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao, which included a line of support for better Indo-Pakistan relations, was regarded in New Delhi as an expression of unwanted interference in a sensitive matter. For some, it raises the worrying specter of Chinese involvement in South Asian diplomacy – and at a time when India's long running border row with China is especially tense. (Read about how each side recently provoked the other and escalated tensions on the border.)
"It seemed to suggest that India had simply fallen between two stools – Pakistan and China were urgent priorities for different reasons," said an editorial in the Indian Express newspaper Monday.
India is also likely to urge the US to take a tougher line on Pakistan, which it blames for harboring terrorists.
India fears losing US favor even as Obama fetes Manmohan Singh
President Obama is hosting Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh this week with his first state visit. But India worries the US cares more about wooing rivals China and Pakistan.
By Mian Ridge | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
from the November 23, 2009 edition. Read about how China and India's rivalry is playing out on the high seas.
What Mr. Anwar Iqbal don’t seem to realize is the simple fact that this is not the first time that Bharat has tried to be the global superpower. In the 50s Nehru tried to lead the entire workd as a third alternative to the USSR and the USA. It formed its very own Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and Tito, Nehru and Mao were the anointed leaders of the 3rd world. However because of the egomaniacal personality of Mr. Nehru, that initiative didn’t go anywhere. Mao and Nehru had a falling out resulting in the 1962 war between Bharat and China. Tito remained a world player ‘till his demise which led to the total disintegration of his country Yugoslavia. Only the progeny of Mao, steadfast to their country have made to the top
In this new Chinese Century, Beijing has clearly told Washington that Kashmir has to be solved in order to resolve Afghanistan. The recent mention of “India-Pakistani” relations during the final statement after the Obama-Tao summit of course translated into “Kashmir”. The not to oblique reference to a territory that Delhi considers its own created a furor in the Bharati press as well as the political circles in the Lok and Rajha Sabha. The pundits in Delhi. Delhi new exactly what it meant. Allowing China to be the leader in South Asia to work as a referee between India and Pakistan relegates India to parity with its much smaller but nuclear armed neighbor
Peace is impossible to be attained in the region unless India stop its support to terrorism in Pakistan, foreign minister Shah Mehmud Qureshi said. In an interview to German news agency Qureshi said, “India is supporting the terrorists in the tribal areas and Balochistan.” “Pakistan is collecting concrete evidences against the Indian intervention in the Pakistani tribal areas and Balochistan,” said Qureshi. He also said that peace and security is impossible to be attained in South Asia unless India changes its hostile behaviour towards Pakistan. India igniting terrorism in Pak: Qureshi. The Nation.
Chinese Sun Tzu vs Indian Chanakya-Kautilya statecraft . Rupee News has repeatedly reported the destructive and negative role of the 4 “Indian Consulates” and the 13 Indian “Information Centers”in Afghanistan. Several news stores about the Indian base in Tajikistan shed light on the nefarious Indian designs in building Chahbahar, the support for BLA terrorists in Baluchistan, the infiltration of Indian agents in anti-Pakistan groups like the TTP, and the direct role of the Indian RAW in sending suicide bombers into Pakistan. Rupee News has now once again been corroborated by the statements of one of the most powerful advisers to Mr. Zardari himself. The reality of Afghanistan: Breaking the media paradigm. As the level of frustration grows in ISAF, Indian RAW tried to pawn itself off as the stabilizing factor. There is an effort to send massive Indian forces to Kabul. 15000 Indian soldiers to Kabul: Anti-ISI Campaign unleashed. A growing number of Think Tanks and journalists have seen through the facade of India as a world power? Part 1 and are now looking at dramatically new solutions. Joe Klein in Neocon cross hairs for opposing new wars.
Secretary of State Clinton during the campaign called Pakistanis paranoid about Indian intentions. Ms. Clinton please explain this article (not the only one) published in India's most presitgious Defense journal.
FINALLY, the US Administration is being told some home truths about the realities on the ground in Pakistan, especially relating to the "war on terror" and the Pakistan-US relationship. It has been evident for some time that the US and its intelligence agency the CIA have had a major falling out with the Pakistan military and especially the ISI. This occurred, it is believed, when the CIA sought direct intervention into ISI dealings in FATA and sought to take out some valuable operatives. But at a macro level, that was simply a reflection of a far larger distrust which was aggravated by the mounting US failures in Afghanistan. Unable to correct course, the easiest option was to target Pakistan and the ISI. Meanwhile, all evidence pointing to Indian covert activities in Balochistan and FATA from Afghanistan were simply being ignored by the US, despite the Pakistan government pointing this out. Some would say the US itself allowed the free flow of weapons from Afghanistan into FATA and Balochistan.
The Pakistani leadership also, despite publicly accusing India and providing evidence to that effect, has tended to downplay it in its interactions with US officials. Now with the visit of the CIA chief to Pakistan, the military through the ISI has directly raised the issue with its US counterpart, the CIA, and given evidence of Indian shenanigans in Afghanistan and possible US involvement in and support of these covert activities. This position has also been reiterated by the Prime Minister, who not only strongly took up these issues with the CIA Chief, but also pointed out the necessity of involving Pakistan in any Afghan strategy being devised by the US.
Tajuddin warned Mujib not to impose the one party system to have more power when he is already the most powerful person in the government. M. A. S. Molla records the Mujib-Tajuddin encounter from Abu Said Chowdhury records. Molla says keeping Mr Syed by his side Tajuddin told Mujib: "I think I must talk to you on some important matters. Some people encircle you in your office in a way that I would not have opportunity to talk to you there, and the environment there is also not congenial. That is why I am using this red telephone for the purpose. You are going to establish a one-party rule, but I told you many times about my reservation. Today I am registering my conclusive opinion. I do not agree to your one-party system. Please tell me why you should go this way."(1)
After failing to take over Bangladesh on Dec 16th 1971, India unleashed the Rakhi Bahni on the Bangladeshis. It then tried to impose a Treaty of Friendship which would have converted into an Indian province. Abu Said Chowdhury records. Molla says keeping Mr Syed by his side Tajuddin told Mujib: "I think I must talk to you on some important matters. Some people encircle you in your office in a way that I would not have opportunity to talk to you there, and the environment there is also not congenial. That is why I am using this red telephone for the purpose. You are going to establish a one-party rule, but I told you many times about my reservation. Today I am registering my conclusive opinion. I do not agree to your one-party system. Please tell me why you should go this way."(1) . On August 14th 1975 Bangladeshi patriots killed the Indian agent Shaikh Mujib and liberated Bangladesh from the Indian grip. Today India is forcing a transit policy on defenseless Bangladesh that is fighting for her existence. The Transit facilites that Bharat is asking would clog existing Balgladeshi roads and pose a security threat to Bangladesh. It would also exacerbate the situation in Northeast "India" where the sevean Assamese states want freedom from Delhi. The Transit agreement poses a mortal threat to Bangladesh
“Tajuddin listened for some time to what Mujib was saying. Then again he was speaking: "First, I am not convinced by your logic. Secondly, this is not my question. This is my statement. As the prime minister, you have enough power in your hands, and I think that you don't need to have a one-party system, or any other change like that. Thirdly, you and I together traversed the country for long 25-30 years, and there is no field or place where we did not go. There we delivered speeches hoping for a happy and prosperous country based on democracy. The democracy for which we talked so much will end through a single stroke of your pen, establishing a one-party system. I am very strongly disagreeing to your decision."(2)
This time Mujib got angry. Mr Syed wrote that Mujib's fury was heard even outside the telephone receiver. But Tajuddin calmly uttered: "By taking this step you are closing all the doors to remove you peacefully from your position. Mujib Bhai, the most unfortunate event will be that the bullet will not hit you alone. We shall also be killed and the nation will plunge into danger."(3)
It is now clear especially from Tajuddin and others prediction that behind the coup leaders was the shadow of a lingering fascism that certainly killed Mujib. The Shadow was Mujib himself. He was a power hungry man who inspired by the Indra Congress syndicate wanted everything for him even when he didn’t deserve many of them. We know that intellectually he was not so bright. As simple as his hand-written Bengali correspondences in the archives were found to be full of syntax problems. He died 30 long years ago but during AL rule he is reincarnated over and again as the “Father of the nation.” What is needed is to discount the shadow (fascism) the major killer in Bangladesh politics. The shadow is Mujib himself (the political actor and an abusive political father) the AL leadership continues to worship as the “Father of the Nation,” a model of hero-worship used perhaps for the AL’s symbolic ownership of the nation is a worrisome thing for a future democratic Bangladesh. As like most fascist regimes, the AL leadership doesn’t allow the investigation of its own misdeeds and doesn’t tolerate opposition or even intellectual debates. New Age staff correspondent FM Masum was lately picked and beaten up by the Rapid Action Battalion in detention for more than 10 hours and a half.(5) “Even the military regime did not harass us as much.” President Sheikh Mujib’s Death:Tajuddin’s Prophecy Abid Bahar, Canada
ISLAMABAD – Serious differences are understood to have cropped up between Pakistan’s premier intelligence agency ISI and US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) over the latter’s dismal role in countering terrorism in Pakistan, TheNation reliably learnt on Friday. According to well-placed sources, the differences between the two strategic partners in war against terror cropped up when ISI Chief Lt. General Ahmed Shujja Pasha in a meeting expressed his disappointment to his US counterpart, the CIA chief spymaster Leon Panetta, over the US failure to help Pakistan in counter-terrorism efforts.
Although there was no official confirmation either from the US Embassy or ISPR about the meeting, it was learnt that both of them had thought provoking talks here in which General Pasha had presented to the CIA official a shocking evidence about Indian interference into Pakistan by using Afghanistan soil. General Pasha, the informed sources said, had presented the evidence about Indian efforts aiding terrorism in Balochistan and Waziristan.
The sources said that General Pasha was critical to the CIA’s counter-terrorism strategy in Afghanistan and CIA’s failure to provide concrete actionable information to Pakistan in containing flow of aid to terror networks operating from Afghanistan to destabilize Pakistan.
The sources said that the CIA chief is currently visiting Pakistan as a follow-up to the visit of US of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to address complains of Pakistan’s military establishment.
The CIA chief is to meet Army Chief General Ashfaq Pavez Kayani today and is likely to get the similar input from him, the sources said. He is also expected to visit Saudi Arabia before his return to USA. ISI Chief confronts CIA counterpart with evidence, By: Maqbool Malik | Published: November 21, 2009
Shiv Sena activists demonstrate in Mumbai.— Photo from Reuters/File
IT is happening too often. Parochialism is rearing its ugly head in Mumbai too frequently. The Shiv Sena is threatening to throw out ‘outsiders’ from Mumbai and the rest of Maharashtra. Self-centred party chief Bal Thackeray has created a ruckus once again, this time dragging into controversy Sachin Tendulkar, the world’s best batsman, who said that he was proud to be a Maharashtrian but that he was Indian first. How should this remark irritate anybody?
I think it is time that Mumbai was made a Union Territory. Industrially and commercially, it is the hub of India’s financial activity. Delhi is a Union Territory because it is the centre of the country’s political activity. Why should Mumbai, which is India’s financial capital, have a different status?
People from various parts of the country have settled in Mumbai making large investments and contributing to business life their labour and entrepreneurship for decades. More money has come from others, not the Maharashtrians. Even population-wise, my impression is that the non-Maharashtrians are a bit up.
If nothing else, the contribution by ‘outsiders’ should shut up the Shiv Sena and its ilk, the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena, that they are a burden on Mumbai or that the jobs in the state should be given to Maharashtrians alone. This pernicious thesis, the son-of-the-soil articulation, was advanced by many states, including Maharashtra, before the Fazl Ali States Reorganisation Commission in 1955. It firmly rejected the various claims and held: “It is the Union of India that is the basis of our nationality.” In its report, the Commission said that “it (Bombay) has acquired its present commanding position by the joint endeavour of the different language groups”.
The proposal that Bombay should be constituted as a separate unit was first mooted by the Dar Commission when the constituent assembly was debating in 1949 the formation of linguistic states. The then ruling Congress party accepted the proposal for the reorganisation of states.
Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru took a fancy to the idea of keeping Bombay apart. He pushed it when Maharashtra and Gujarat were agitating against the commission’s recommendation to integrate them into one bilingual state. Nehru presented before the cabinet a proposal to have three units: Maharashtra, Gujarat and the city of Bombay. The then finance minister, C.D. Deshmukh, agreed to the formula in the cabinet. But he changed his stand following the furore in Maharashtra and submitted his resignation. Bombay was made part of Maharashtra.
Nevertheless, the linguistic states have not been of much help to the country. They are increasingly becoming ‘islands of chauvinism’. This was the danger to which Nehru drew attention after new boundaries were drawn on the basis of language. The BJP-run Madhya Pradesh is the latest one to announce that it does not want Bihari labour. Unfortunately, the manner in which certain administrations have conducted their affairs has partly contributed to the growth of parochial sentiments. The rulers have an eye on elections, not realising that the idea of India gets defeated if people prioritise domicile considerations.
After the formation of states, it was understood that the regional language could be learnt after the recruitment. But now its knowledge has been made compulsory before a person is eligible for the job. This is making state services an exclusive preserve of the majority language group of the state.
The prosperity of some states like Maharashtra, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka has raised questions in UP, Bihar and Orissa, the economically backward areas, that they were not getting their due. Relations between the centre and the states have become strained on this count.
The country’s unity has been uppermost in the mind of policymakers. There have been a few movements here and there, raising the standard of autonomy. But the democratic system with a federal structure, established firmly after the introduction of the constitution in 1950, has taken the wind out of the separatists’ sail. Except for a few militants’ organisations in the northeast, the people’s heart is in the country’s unity.
In the late 1950s, the southern states felt that they were not getting their share. There were agitations and public rallies. Nehru was quick to convenethe National Integration Conference to discuss the various grievances. The conference appointed many committees to give their recommendations on how to bring about national integration.
Before they could submit the reports, China attacked India in 1962. All committees made just one comment: The Chinese invasion had united the entire country. Indeed, this was true because all dissenting voices died in no time.
The country had a jolt in the 1980s. The Akalis in Punjab revolted. The state was in the midst of militancy for about a decade. The Sikhs themselves turned against the militants who had made their life hell. Punjab is today a peaceful state.
The odd voice of linguistic chauvinism, the fallout of the reorganisation of the states in 1955, has been heard in some areas off and on. The real purpose has been to gain votes in the name of the ‘stepmotherly treatment’ meted out to a particular community. It must be admitted that slogans in the name of language or caste has helped.
The only state where parochialism has been constantly fostered by the Shiv Sena is Maharashtra. The group even won an election with the support of the BJP, on the slogan ‘throw out outsiders from Maharashtra’. Bihari labourers were beaten up, something which Raj Thackeray, nephew of Bal Thackeray, repeated after breaking away from the Shiv Sena.
No doubt, the basis of nationality is the Union of India. The states are but the limbs of the union. Yet the limbs must be healthy and strong. Some states have too many poor people concentrated in their territory. Yet what keeps India together is its diversity. By dividing the country into linguistic spheres or by injuring the rights of those who are in a minority, the parochial elements are posing a danger to the very idea of India. It is better that organisations like the Shiv Sena understand this. Where’s the idea of India? By Kuldip Nayar, Friday, 20 Nov, 2009, The writer is a senior journalist based in Delhi.
Throw all these bums out and watch the ratings of Pakistani corruption rise—the best lesson for the younger generation that sees value in money not knowledge, profit in grades not education, and yearning for worldly goods rather than self-satisfaction and an honest days labor.
The illiterate electorate is too enamored, and too shackled to stop reelecting these crooks.
If the crooks are sent to “government accommodations” and the 40,000 poor and innocent who reside there taken out, we can begin looking at a bright future in Pakistan.
As if the news that we had dropped a further five places down the Transparency International corruption scale were not enough, there comes the (not unexpected) revelation of the writing off of billions of rupees as a consequence of the promulgation of the NRO. A report in this newspaper suggests that the figure could be as much as Rs1,000 billion, a number so incomprehensibly large that it beggars the imagination. The National Reconciliation Ordinance effectively cancelled the powers of the National Accountability Bureau (itself flawed and of doubtful provenance but something is better than nothing) and opened the gate for hundreds – perhaps several thousands – engaged in graft and corruption to walk away from their crimes.
Those who did the walking were not the poor or needy; they were the rich and powerful, the movers and shakers at the top end of our society. In many cases there is powerful evidence of wrongdoing, much of it by politicians and the workers of political parties across the entire spectrum of our political entities and institutions. Whatever evidence there was has disappeared and will never be presented. A stratum of criminality at the heart of politics and governance once again escapes the rule of law.
Finally, dreaded NRO list is out and official Friday, November 20, 2009
By Ansar Abbasi ISLAMABAD: The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) presented to the government on Thursday a list of 248 politicians and bureaucrats, who were alleged to have plundered hundreds of billions of rupees but were cleared by the NAB under the NRO.
Sources in the Law Ministry while sharing with The News the “complete list” of NAB’s NRO beneficiaries, explained that thousands other cases of NRO beneficiaries did not belong to the NAB but with the provincial governments because they were criminal cases and were not covered by the NAB law.
On top of the list is the name of President Asif Ali Zardari while his several close associates, both political and bureaucratic, including Rehman Malik, Salman Farooqi and his brother Usman Farooqi, Hussain Haqqani and Siraj Shamsuddin are also reflected.
The list, which also reflects a brief introduction of the cases dropped against each name under the NRO, also includes the name of serving and former ministers, federal and provincial secretaries, ex-chief secretaries, existing or former members of the national and provincial assemblies and others.
According to the list, Asif Ali Zardari remained the beneficiary No 1 of the NRO as at least eight of his NAB cases of corruption and misuse of authorities were dropped. These cases included the alleged kickbacks from SGS PSI Company, grant of licence to ARY Gold causing huge loss to government, corruption in purchase of Ursus tractors under the Awami Tractor Scheme, illegal award of contract to Cotecna for pre-shipment, assets beyond means, received kickbacks from Sajjad Ahmad (late) ex-chairman Pakistan Steel Mills, illegal construction of Polo ground at PM House and the money laundering SGS Swiss case.
Others amongst politicians include Nawaz Yousaf Talpur, ex-MNA and former minister, who was co-accused in URSUS tractors case; Ms Nusrat Bhutto, assets case; ex-MNA and the PPP Secretary General Jehangir Badr, assets case and corruption in Sui Southern Gas Company; ex-minister for commerce and presently Defence Minister Ahmad Mukhtar, misuse of authority in issuing sugar export permit to non-entitled persons in 1994; ex-MNA Malik Mushtaq Ahmed Awan, embezzlement in Octroi contracts; ex-MNA Rana Nazir Ahmed, assets case and misuse of authority; ex-MPA Mian M Rashid, assets case and illegal appointments; ex-MPA Tariq Anees, assets beyond means; ex-MPA Mian Tariq Mehmood Dina, assets beyond means; ex-minister of education Sindh Agha Sirajuddin and others, misuse of authority; ex-chief minister and former interior minister Aftab Ahmed Sherpao, misuse of authority, illegal allotment of plots and assets case; ex-provincial minister Ghani-ur-Rehman, assets beyond means; ex-senator Haji Gulsher, misuse of authority and acquisition of land; ex-provincial minister Habibullah Khan Kundi, misuse of authority and acquisition of land; ex-MNA Mir Baz Muhammad Khan Khethran, misappropriation of government funds allocated for people’s works programme; ex-federal minister Anwar Saifullah Khan, misuse of authority in allocation of LPG and illegal appointments; ex-provincial minister Sardar Mansoor Laghari, corruption in Utility Stores Corporation; ex-Mayor Sargodha Ch Abdul Hameed, assets beyond means; ex-chairman Zila Council Lahore Ch Shoukat Ali, ex-MNA Haji Kabir and ex-chairman Zila Council Lahore Ch Zulfikar Ali in Zila Council fraud case.
Amongst government servants and others, who had benefited from NRO and got themselves cleared from NAB cases include ex-additional director general FIA and presently Interior Minister Rehman Malik, embezzlement of funds on account of un-authorized released of imported yellow cab cars, illegal detention of complainant and illegal gratification; ex-secretary information and presently Pakistan’s ambassador in the US Husain Haqqani, co-accused in Ms BB case of TV channels; ex-federal secretary and presently principal secretary to the president Suleman Farooqi, illegal allotment of textile quota, forgery and fraud, obtained illegal benefits in connivance with exporters; ex-chairman Pakistan Steels Mill, caused loss to Pak Steels through illegal disposal of 15.93 MT of end cuts, procurement of Ferro Silicon at higher rates; ex-joint secretary PM Secretariat, former principal secretary to the PM Gilani and presently Executive Director ADB Siraj Shamsuddin, illegal appointment; ex-NBP president and presently Pakistan’s ambassador M B Abbasi, corruption and corrupt practices and loan default; ex-secretary Sindh Rasool Baksh Rahoo, KPT land cases; Mashook Ahmed Usmani, Aurangzeb, Moin ul Arfeen, Akhtar H Askari and Kher M Kalochi of Pakistan Steels Mills (PSM) in the case of purchases on exorbitant prices for PSM; ex-DG textile quota Nayyar Bari and ex-DD Export Promotion Board Anees Alam, illegal allotment of textile quota, forgery/fraud, obtained illegal benefits in connivance with exporters; ex- secretary commerce Brig (R) Aslam Hayat Qureshi, co-accused in ARY Gold case; ex-advisor to Prime Minister A R Siddiqi, co-accused in AAZ and BB cases; ex-principal secretary to the PM Saeed Mehdi, co-accused in polo ground case; ex-principal secretary to the PM Ahmed Sadiq, assets beyond means; ex-chief secretary Punjab Javed Qureshi, fraud in Zila Council Lahore contracts; ex president HBL, willful default, ex DG Intelligence Bureau Brig Imtiaz, assets beyond means; ex-MD Printing Corporation of Pakistan Pir Mukarram, corruption and corrupt practices; ex-DG Textile Quota Akhtar Alam in textile quota case; ex-secretary Petroleum Capt (R) Naseer Ahmad, misuse of authority in awarding contracts for OGDC; ex-Director Textile Quota Syed Arfeen, textile quota case; customs officials Khalid Aziz, Muhammad Nawaz Butt and Mumtaz Ali Changezi in illegal evasion of tax duties case and wrong refund of customs rebate case; Pak Steel employees Syed Iqtedar Rasool, Qaiser Raza, Irfanuddin, Hisamuddin and Qurban Ali Jatoi in import of PIG iron for PSM case; General Manager Port Qasim Authority Abdul Sattar Dero, corruption in PSM; businessman/transporter Pir Deedar Hussain Shah, yellow cab scam; ex-FIA Assistant Director Sajjad Haider, ex-Inspector Muhammad Sharif Qureshi and inspector Moeen Ashraf, all three co-accused of Rehman Malik in embezzlement of funds on account of unauthorized release of imported yellow cab cars case; Assistant Director FIA Agha Ishrat Ali, assets beyond means; ex-Deputy Director FIA Ch Muhammad Sharif, assets beyond means; ex-Additional Commissioner Income Tax Javed Iqbal Mirza, assets beyond means; ex Managing Director Karachi Water and Sewerage Board Aftab Ahmed, misuse of authority in awarding contracts; Project Director Karachi Water and Sewerage Board Fareed Ahmed, misuse of authority in awarding contracts; ex-Regional Commissioner of Income Tax Sindh Abrar Ahmed, assets beyond known resources.
The names of other beneficiaries are Collector Customs Imtaiz Ali Taj; ex-Secretary Javed Burki, DG Port Qasim Authority Irshad Ahmed Sheikh; AD FIA Noor Muhammad Kaka; Maj (R) Rashid Khan; Additional Director FIA Ali Qaswar Bokhari; ex-DG Peshawar Development Authority Syed Zahir Shah; Suptd Customs Check Post Mand Muhammad Younas Butt; Customs officials Sherdad Khan, Sajad Hussain, Muhammad Sarwar and Abdul Hameed Siddiqi; Senior Store Manager Muhammad Iqbal; District Engineer Water Supply Quetta Zamarak Khan; Revenue Officer Pashin Rehman Ali; Assistant Revenue Office Pashin Hafiz Matiullah; Superintendent Revenue Officer Pishin Muhammad Iqbal; Junior Auditor Ibrar Hussain; ex-SP Railways Inamur Rehman Sehri; ex-DC CDA Ch Muhammad Aslam; ex-Secretary CDA Abdul Ghafoor Dogar; ex-AD CDA Mushtaq Ahmed Baloch; ex-Sub Engineer CDA Muhammad Ismail; ex-DC CDA Ahmed Khan; ex-Account Officer Attaullah Khan; ex Patwari Muhammad Farooq; ex-Patwari CDA Muzamil Hussain; Clerk CDA Dawood Khan; ex-Deputy Director Planning CDA Muhammad Iqbal; ex-DC CDA Muhammad Amin; ex-DC CDA Shoukat Ali; Supervisor PTCL Sheikh Liaqat Ali; Assistant Manager GHQ Habibullah Tasnim; Assistant Store Keeper Muhammad Saeed; ex-DG Services CDA Mohiuddin Jameeli; ex DD CDA Muhammad Ashfaq; ex-Asstt Estate Manager CDA Din Muhammad; EGDC official Raheel J Qureshi; GPO Rawalpindi officials Muhammad Farooq, Salim Raza, Muhammad Anwar, Muhammad Akhtar and Arshad Mehmood; ex-Tehsildar Raja Zahid Hussain; Dy DG Military Land and Cantonment Department Abdul Naeem Khan; ex-SSD MEO Rwp Sh Muhammad Amin; Assistant Director Military Land and Cantonment Abdul Hayee Qamar; ex-DG Military Land and Cantonment Qazi Naeem Ahmed; Abdul Ghafoor Khan, Muhammad Ali; ex-Chairman SLI Zaheer; ex-DG NHA Iqbal Ahmad; ex-Chief Engineer CAA Raees M Irshad; CAA officials Ghulam Qadir Lakhan, Shafique Siddiqi, Ahmed Hussain, Iqbal Bangash, Khurshid Anwar, M Akbar, A D Abbasi, Kh Farooq Ahmad and Rafique Shad; OGDC officials Jaffar Mohammad, Khalid Subhani, Capt (R) Nazir Ahmed; Najmul Hassan, M Ishaq, Muzaffar Hussain, Shahid Ahmed, Qamar Hussain Shah, M Israel Khan and Bashir Ahmad Bhatti; PWD officials Mureed Ahmed Baloch, Sadaqat Ali, Khalid Mehmood Nasir, Akram Rao, Rashid Mujib Siddiqi, Aslam Shahid, Zahid ullah Khan and Shabbair Husain; Wapda officials Anwar Hussain, Wapda Line Superintendents Saifullah, Muhammad Arshad, Syed Ehsan Ali Shah, Mirza Saeed Ahmed, Akbar Ali and Allah Wasaya; Nadra officials Hakim Din, Sardari Ali and Nadir Khan; Zakim Khan Masood, Sadiq Ali Khan, Sardar Mansoor Leghari, Din Muhammad, Sikandar Ali Abbasi, Ahmad Yar Gondal, Amin Jan, Sharif Alam Padri, Usman Ghani Khatri, Adnan Khawaja, Nadeem Imtiaz; ex-official Abdul Hakeem, proprietor M/s Techno Int Pir Bux Solangi; private person Abdul Sattar Mandokhel; official S M Attaur Rehman; Sahib Dad Mengal; Hamza Khan Gabol; Riaz ul Hassan Rizvi; Shamsuddin, Ayaz Ahmed, Mukhtiar Ahmad, Muhammad Ali, Abdul Aziz, Rasheed Muhammad Qureshi, Mumtaz Ahmed Bhutto, Maqsood Ahmed, ex-UDC MEO Sialkot Naeem uddin, ex Asst Audit Officer Muhammad Hanif Rahi; ex-cameraman Abu Zar Jaffari; Auditor General officials Muneeruddin Ch, Abdul Razaak Bhatti, Mehr Sajjad Ahmed, Mirza Sajjad Ahmed, Mirza Muhammad Ayub, Muhammad Iqbal Shah, Mukhtar Ahmed, Malik Shahmat Ali, Mian Abdul Rehman, Muhammad Shafique, Syed Javed Hassan, Syed Muzaffar H Shah, Muhammad Sarwar Safi, Muhammad Shabbir and Tariq Mehmood; Food Department officials Ch Nazir Ahmed, Safiullah Awan and Muhammad Usman; Wapda’s Liaqat Ali, Customs Ali Muhammad Sheikh; PTCL’s Munawar Hussain, Muhammad Ashfaq Naz and Muhammad Shahid; Lahore Wapda’s Shahid Iqbal Ghauri, Manzoor H Chohan, Muhammad Javed, Abdul Rehman, Iftikhar Ali and M Qasim; Amjad Hussain Sandhal, Syed Zahir Hussain, Ghulam Mustafa, M Hanif; Sadiq Muhammad, Sameer Amjad, Ch M Siddiqi, Rasheed Ahmed Patwari, Mirza Sher Muhammad; businessmen Seth Nisar Ahmed and Zahid Mehmood; official Murid Ahmed Baloch, Qazi Afzal Hussain, Shaukat Hussain Shah, Maqbool Ahmed, Noor Jamal, Sardar Muhammad Nasim, Mirza Sher Muhammad, Rashid Ahmed Patwari, Muhammad Usman, Arshad Mehmood, Muhammad Akhtar and Waheedur Rehman.
The determination to resist any form of accountability is embedded at every level of governance and has become a defining national characteristic. Small wonder that the world sees us as something of a basket case, seemingly teetering on failed-statehood and forever in denial of our many flaws. They have only to read through the back issues of our newspapers for the last twenty years or so (which is as far back as archives go online) to see the rot at the core of the state, the venality that elsewhere would have brought down individuals if not entire governments. Unless and until there is a change in the culture of corruption we seem doomed to wallow very publicly in our own filth – and there is neither sign of nor incentive for change. Our rulers invest heavily in the status quo and perhaps have little real interest in educating or empowering the majority, because by doing so they may be in a position to challenge that artificial equilibrium. The iniquitous NRO was, according to some legal eagles, itself unconstitutional and discriminatory, a law applicable only to a tiny section of the population and not a law for all men and women everywhere. How many schools could have been built for Rs1,000 billion? Hospitals? Roads? Rural water supply systems? Vocational training centres? Until a majority decides to stand up and say ‘Enough’, NRO beneficiaries are going to be laughing as they dance towards their banks.
What kind of Mad Max world is it where the Secretary of State of the United States of America gives a nuanced answer—to a simple question, would the US support warlords in the new Kabul government. Of course Mrs. Clinton should have said no—but she couldn’t say no, because in 2001 the US approached the warlords to switch sides and paid them cash Dollars. This was before Mr. Karzai was on the scene. According to Bob Woodward they brought in millions of Dollars in cash and gave them to the Northern Alliance so that it could buy friends and influence in the country.
When Mr. Karzai took over the government, the warlords had switched sides and were supporting the man in Kabul. Now Mrs. Clinton is criticizing the Karzai government for being incompetent and corrupt.
In the same breath she said that Mr. Karai should have tecnhocrats in the cabinet, and that “there are warlords and there are warlords”, signaling approval of some warlords in the government.
WASHINGTON — US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton proposed Thursday to Afghan President Hamid Karzai to bring technocrats rather than warlords into his new government.
The chief US diplomat disclosed what she said during an interview with Afghanistan's Azadi radio while on a visit to Kabul for Karzai's inauguration following fraud-tainted presidential elections in August.
"I have made it clear, as have others, that we would far prefer that the president have people in the cabinet with professional skills, with experience and expertise who can actually do the work that is required," Clinton said.
"And I think he understands that and he is certainly giving me the strong impression that that?s what he intends to do," Clinton said, according to a transcript released by the State Department.
Karzai was sworn in for a second presidential term Thursday, winning Western praise with a promise to combat corruption and to put Afghan troops in charge of security within five years.
When asked if the United States would support a Karzai administration with "warlords," Clinton gave a nuanced answer.
"Well, there are warlords and there are warlords," she said.
"There are people who are called back who fought on behalf of the people of Afghanistan against the Soviet Union, who fought against al-Qaeda and the Taliban and their allies," Clinton said.
"And there are people who had very serious breaches of human rights and mistreatment of people during war, which is always difficult to look back on and figure out how to judge," she added.
The secretary of state said it was up to the people of Afghanistan to decide whether to seek any political resolution with the Taliban, to whom Karzai has extended a hand.
"But I think it is important to make sure that anyone who would be invited back into society gives up violence," she said.
"There should be the end of any kind of armed capacity outside the military and the police, which is why we are committed to helping build a professional, disciplined army and police force for your country," Clinton said. Clinton asks Karzai to bring technocrats into government (AFP) –
Talking to the Indian press, about the sad state of affairs of Indian defense, the Indian IAF Vice Chief Air Marshal P K Barbora made the following statement
We do not even match up Pakistan as far defence goes: IAF Vice Chief
Amazingly this story was published only by two Bharti newspapers. Other than the Indian Express all major newspapers either suppressed the story, did not see news value in it or deliberately did not publish it. Bharatis are fed a constant dose of “indigenous production” which they begin to believe. These stories shatter the false paradigm with truth, so most Indian news outlets do not run the stories.
NEW DELHI, Nov. 19 (APP) Indian Air Force Vice Chief Air Marshal P K Barbora while complaining against Indian political class for playing politics on military requirements said “as far as defence goes, we don’t even match up with Pakistan.”Playing politics over defence purchases impinged “very badly” on the country’s military requirements,” he told a CII seminar on energising aviation sector in India.
P K Barbora while expressing dissatisfaction also about India’s Defence exports said, “as far as defence goes, we don’t even match up with Pakistan.”“The internal politics over the years is such that whatever defence requirements are cleared by the government, they are opposed by the opposition parties and the same happens when roles change and opposition sits in government, “ he said.
Barbora’s observations on Tuesday about recruitment of women pilots in IAF also generated heated debate in the media.
He had said “they may be recruited as fighter pilots provided they do not become mother till a certain age.” He also suggested that having woman pilots in IAF may be a bad investment for the government.
Today, he said he did not mean that what had been debated in the media over his remarks saying those were his personal views and not the policy of the Ministry of Defence. APP
The Indian Express also the reported the same story. Here Vice Chief Air Marshal P K Barbora sheds light on the fake indigenous production of planes in Bharat (aka India):
Talking about the transfer of technology (ToT) agreements in the defence deals, Barbora said they were not very beneficial as "what actually has come after so many deals (in ToT) with foreign company or whatever it is, I am sorry, it was tools and kits, which came in bags and containers and we assembled the aircraft here."
Citing example of the success of the European aviation consortium Airbus, Barbora said Indian industry should also look at building partnerships on those lines and must join hands with other countries to grow.
Marshall Barbora had some ideas on how to develop the Indian defense industry, but his ideas failed to explain how China and Pakistan had developed thier local defense industry and both have defense exports bigger than Bharat. Marshall Barbora also did not shed light on why a foreign commercial enterprise would give away its secrets (Coke formula) and commit commercial suicide.
We have to take steps...we need to be bold enough to invite Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), more so into defence use," he told a CII seminar on energising aviation sector in India.
At present, foreign companies are allowed to invest only 26 per cent in Indian companies. Some of the global defence giants such as BAE Systems had proposed to start a joint venture with Mahindra Defence Systems with 49 per cent stakes but it did not get government's approval.
Commenting on the politics over military purchases, Barbora said whatever defence requirements are cleared by the government, they are opposed by the opposition parties and the same happens when roles change and opposition sits in government.
"That impinges very badly on our defence requirements," he said. Stressing on the need for giving more freedom to private industry, Barbora said, "Private industry has to be evolved and given a market of their choosing and not our choosing, of course with certain guidelines."
He said bringing in private players was very important for the aviation sector as India was not even contributing one per cent to the world market in the aerospace industry.
Asking the private companies to learn reverse engineering processes the way China did to develop most of its defence technologies, he said, "Forget about ethics. China has done all the reverse engineering. Has anyone ever had the courage to ask China why are you doing it. No one cares a hoot. If you can't do it yourself, you should know how to reverse engineering.
"We have not been able to move forward for some reason or the other," Barbora added.
On the present status of the country's capabilities in the aerospace sector, the IAF Vice Chief said India was very happy producing small parts of aircraft and exporting them to Airbus in Europe but China has already started building whole aircraft for the same company. News x. http://newsx.com/story/66875
Nov. 18 – Chinese computer maker Lenovo has fallen into a row over maps displaying China and surrounding regions installed as wallpaper on laptops given to the Indian government.
On the computers, Aksai Chin, which India claims, is shown as part of China while part of Kashmir is depicted as being in Pakistan. The computers were distributed to India’s Income Tax Department after Lenovo won a bid for supplying them. Around 10,000 laptops were supplied by Lenovo to offices across the country early this year with the entire process being routed through the office of the director of income tax in Delhi.
Lenovo said that the laptops were made in its Indian Pondicherry unit and that the software came from the United States. Lenovo have stated that the map depicts global time zones and not geographical or political boundaries. It also said that they were in the process of removing the wall papers considering the sensitivity involved. The Police have been called in as depicting certain parts of Kashmir as being in Pakistan is a criminal offense in India.
Lenovo said that time zones in the wallpaper adhere to conventionally accepted and commonly found time zone borders and they correspond to the time zone markings at the bottom of the map. However, according to India’s investigating Police, “India falls under a single time zone and so this explanation is not plausible”
According to the company, it held a service camp in April at various income tax offices where time zone wallpapers were replaced with other conventional wallpapers. The company said it would replace the wall papers if there are more in circulation. A senior income tax official contested the claims and said, “We are not aware of such camps. In Mumbai at least the company has not approached us.”
While the disputes between India and China over the territories concerned go back some time, this incident seems more laughable than others. It does demonstrate both an embarrassing lack of due diligence on behalf of the Indian purchasing department and an alarming, if mischievous demonstration of political interference in a globally traded business by the Chinese. Lenovo Laptops Show Indian-Claimed Territory as Chinese
“…there seems to be a parting of the ways at the strategic level." Stephen Cohen commenting on India-US relations
One Indian daily has opined that America is crtically dependent on China's goodwill and that America is a huge debtor nation of China.
Meanwhile, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia Robert Blake also recognized China’s role in forging security and stability in South Asia, both in Pakistan-India and Pakistan-Afghanistan perspectives.
“China has a very important role to play ---- like many other countries we are consulting them - it is important to get views of China on this very very important question. We value their advice.
U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia Robert Blake is trying to smooth India, Chinese and Pakistani feathers. India is concerned about US-China and US-Pakistani relations, China about US-Indian relations and Pakistan about US-Indian relations.
U.S tried its level best to appease the new dispensation of Tokyo by reengaging Japan in different perspectives and dimensions, so that differences of the past remain the matter of past. U.S desires to be the most important ally in the region. At the same time, the President Barack Obama faces challenges because there is a new government in Japan, which stood for a lot of things in opposition of the government in the proceeding 50 plus years. And so the President has to walk a fine line between providing counseling, giving time to the Japanese side to work its way through differences , and at the same time lay down markers about things that are too important to be left to political expediency in our alliance. U.S will require resorting to all kinds of positive steps to set the house in order regarding the Japan’s affair. dayafterindia
BEIJING: A Foreign Ministry official said on Thursday China would only “support” relevant moves to improve peace and stability in South Asia, and indicated the country did not see seek to play a primary role in improving relations between India and Pakistan.
A joint statement issued by China and the United States on Tuesday surprised officials and strategic experts in New Delhi by including a brief reference to improving relations between India and Pakistan.
Some analysts read the reference as the U.S. encouraging a greater Chinese role in South Asia. The Ministry of External Affairs in New Delhi said in a statement on Wednesday that a “third country role cannot be envisaged” and was not necessary. The Hindu
The declarations from Beijing caused severe consternation in Delhi.
When US President Barack Obama beamed in Beijing, the Chinese managed tight-lipped smiles. When he spoke haltingly with none of his usual confidence, about Tibet, Iran or the Chinese currency, they ignored him, served chicken soup with bean curd and sent him to climb the Great Wall.
Even before Obama made his first and conciliatory China visit urging the ‘strong and prosperous’ communist nation (and the US’ biggest creditor) to execute its ‘responsibility’ of a global role, the definition of that role was being debated in Beijing.
“Not all of America’s problems are automatically China’s problems,’’ Shen Dingli, executive dean of the Institute of International Relations of the elite Fudan University in Shanghai, told HT this week.
“We follow when the US is right and we refuse to follow when the US is wrong. We will expand our global role but not because the US wants us to expand but because we need to do it anyway.’’
In the rare US-China joint statement released after Obama’s summit with his counterpart Hu Jintao, Beijing made it clear that India-Pakistan bilateral relations are now officially its problem. Hindustan Times
(November 19, Chennai, Sri Lanka Guardian) The failure of President Barack Obama to understand the distrust of China in large sections of the Indian civil society has landed the US in a situation in which the considerable goodwill between India and the US created during the administration of his predecessor George Bush stands in danger of being diluted by his unthinking words and actions.
The distrust of China in the Indian civil society is much deeper than even the distrust of Pakistan. Even today, despite Pakistan's continued use of terrorism against India, there is some goodwill for the people of Pakistan in many sections of the Indian civil society. As against this, outside the traditional communist and other leftist circles, one would hardly find any section which trusts China ---its Government as well as its people.
The Indian distrust of China arises mainly from three factors. First, the Sino-Indian war of 1962. Second, China's role in giving Pakistan a military nuclear and missile capability for use against India. Third, the Chinese blockage of the pre 26/11 efforts in the sanctions committee of the UN Security Council to declare the Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JUD), the parent organisation of the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET), as a terrorist organisation and its subsequent opposition for a similar declaration against the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JED).
The dubious Chinese stand on the issue of Pakistani use of terrorism against India is viewed by many in India as amounting to collusion.Sri Lanka Guardian
Mr. Blake tried to clam down tempers in Delhi.
(RTTNews) - Robert Blake, Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia, has said that there is no need for India to be concerned over the reference to the Indo-Pak ties in a U.S.-China joint statement, asserting that U.S. has an equally important relationship with New Delhi as that with Beijing.
"I don't think there needs to be any concern in India about what the president said in China. We have very important relations with China. But we have equally important relations with India," Blake, told reporters at a news briefing in Washington.
He said that this will come out very clearly during the course of the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's visit beginning Monday. Blake's remarks came a day after New Delhi slammed the reference to India and Pakistan in the joint U.S.-China statement saying it did not envisage a role by a third party in what was essentially a bilateral dispute.
Welcoming China's interest in helping to stabilize the Af-Pak region, Blake further said the Obama Administration believes that Beijing has high stakes, particularly in Afghanistan, where they have very significant investments.
"As with most of the other countries in the world, we welcome China's participation in helping to stabilize that very important part of the region," he said.
Bharat is worried about US relations with China and Pakistan. Delhi was very perturbed by the joint US-Chinese statement which apparently encouraged China to play mediation between Islamabad and Delhi.
New Delhi has not been that happy over the reference of Indian-Pak Dialogues and Tibet. “Barack Hussain Obama’s reference of Tibet and ‘One-China policy’ was in a usual fashion of the policy matter in the region. It can not be seen as a great diplomatic matter. So, it’s a part of the general statement,” said Alkacaharya expert of Chinese affairs. dayafterindia
Now, the reality of an activist US role in Afghanistan and Pakistan leaves little room for any pious sentiment that South Asian
peace should be left to South Asians. However, does the US need to make China also a partner to promote peace in the region and support “the improvement and growth of relations between India and Pakistan”? Times of India
South block officials say India-US ties have come of age and will not go back to the days when Bill Clinton came to India in March 2000;dna India
Delhi has its worries about Washington. It was furious at allowing Beijing a role in Indian-Pakistani relations, something which China sees as its problem.
New Delhi: After the sharp and strict reaction of New Delhi over Obama’s endorsement of a Chinese role in South Asia, Washington is now trying to pacify new Delhi. Latest news Online
China has a role in South Asia. Obama’s acknowledgement of that role is acceptance of a fact. The Chinese view the Delhi “anger” with amusement.
According to them, President Obama will have to satisfy Dr. Singh during a private briefing on his China visit that his public posturing viz-a-viz China's perceived role in South Asia should not be taken as interference in India or Pakistan's internal affairs.
On his part, Dr. Singh will have to assess the direction of President Obama's roadmap for South Asia. He will have to determine whether Obama intends to approve and support China's role in the region through proxy.
One Indian daily has opined that America is crtically dependent on China's goodwill and that America is a huge debtor nation of China. It further suggests that most US presidents in the latter half of the 20th century and at the start of the 21st century have been hobbled by China during their first terms, and compromised through scandal in their second terms. Beijing News
Anwar Iqbal’s incompetent reporting on Mr. Blake’s statement was ridiculous and did not paint the entire picture correctly. There is more consternation in Delhi about America’s close relationship with Beijing and Islamabad The Dawn story by Anwar Iqbal paints a bad picture for US-Pakistani relations. the APP report is a bit more balanced
Meanwhile, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia Robert Blake also recognized China’s role in forging security and stability in South Asia, both in Pakistan-India and Pakistan-Afghanistan perspectives.
“China has a very important role to play ---- like many other countries we are consulting them - it is important to get views of China on this very very important question. We value their advice. China have also important stakes in stability of Afghanistan. So it is only natural we will consult them,” he said.
He spoke a day after after U.S. and China recognized in a joint statmenet - during President Barack Obama’s visit to Beijing - that China had an important role in helping imrprove relations between Pakistan and India.
“Both. We want to get their (Chinese) views on both of them,” Blake replied, when asked to clarify if the U.S. wanted to have Chinese role in promoting peace and stability in Pakistan-Afghanistan region or on Pakistan-India front or both.
New Delhi has bristled at suggestions that Beijing should play an important role toward promotion of peace and stability between Pakistan and India. APP
The US is walking a tight rope in Asia.
WASHINGTON, Nov 19 (APP): Asserting U.S. interest in peace and stability in South Asia, a senior American diplomat has said Washington is supportive of resolution of disputes between India and Pakistan through dialogue.Separately, a senior U.S. diplomat also renewed Washington’s belief that it would listen to China’s views on promoting peace between Pakistan and India.“Of course, we all share an interest in stability and peace between India and Pakistan. We all know the stakes,” Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns said, speaking at a think-tank, days ahead of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to Washington from November 22 to 26.
“America has always supported the two countries’ peace process and the resolution of outstanding disputes through dialogue,” he stated, reaffirming the U.S. policy to back negotiated settlement of issues between the two nations.
However, Burns said, “the pace, scope, and content of the peace process is for Indian and Pakistani leaders to decide.”
“But we have welcomed renewed engagement, including this past summer between Prime Ministers Singh and (Yousaf Raza) Gilani, and between Prime Minister Singh and President (Asif Ali) Zardari.” APP
I don't think Islamabad should feel threatened by the steps we are taking to improve our relations with India: Robert Blake. — Photo by AP
WASHINGTON: The United States assured Pakistan on Wednesday that it had nothing to fear from growing US-India relations because Washington also valued its ties with Islamabad.
At a briefing in Washington, Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs Robert Blake also addressed India’s concern over a joint US-China statement issued in Beijing on Tuesday which recognised China’s role in improving India-Pakistan relations. The statement also urged China to help prevent Pakistan or Afghanistan from becoming a base for terrorism.
While insisting that the United States wanted India and Pakistan to resolve their differences bilaterally, the US official acknowledged that Washington would like to get China’s views on both ‘Indo-Pak relations and on Afghanistan and solicit their advice on both as we do of India’s’.
Mr Blake noted that China had considerable ‘equities’ in Afghanistan and could play an important role in stabilising that country as well. The Dawn
Beijing, Tehran, Caracus, Islamabad, Colombo, Dhaka, and Khatmandu will surely be looking at the US antics on how Bharat is being built up as a counter weight to China—none fear the US-Indian tango, but all detest, abhor and dislike the manner in which this is being conducted
Asked how should Islamabad view Mr Singh’s forthcoming visit to the US during which the two countries are expected to announce initiatives aimed at recognising India as an emerging world power, the US official said: ‘I don’t think Islamabad should in any way feel threatened by the steps we are taking to improve our relations with India. We value our relationships with both India and Pakistan.’
At a specially arranged briefing for South Asian journalists at Washington’s Foreign Press Centre on Mr Singh’s visit, Mr Blake noted that Pakistan had moved away some troops from the Indian border to combat militants on the western border but said there was ‘room for more’.
Although Mr Blake praised Pakistan’s efforts to combat the extremists, particularly in Swat and South Waziristan, he urged Pakistani authorities to complete their investigations against the suspects of the Mumbai terror attacks and punish those responsible.
All Pakistanis wonder why Mr. Blake forgot to mention the incidents of Bharati inspired terror against Pakistan. Lots of voices for Mumbai, none for the Kashmiris, Palestinians, and the displaced Iraqis.
Mr Blake noted that Lashkar-e-Taiba chief Hafiz Saeed was already sanctioned by both India and Pakistan and urged Islamabad to take action against him.
He said that Pakistan clearly intended to tackle these violent terrorists and had already made ‘a lot of progress’ but urged Pakistan to ensure that its territory was not used for cross-border attacks against India or others.
Mr Blake said that while the United States appreciated Pakistan’s efforts to fight extremists, it hoped that Islamabad would also take action against those who were considered a threat to India and the US.
Pakistan, he said, should also expand its operations beyond Swat and South Waziristan and go to other areas as well.
Mr Singh arrives in Washington on Nov 22 on a two-day state visit although he will spend five days in the US capital. Pakistan urged not to fear Indo-US ties By Anwar Iqbal Thursday, 19 Nov, 2009
Stephen Cohen describes a parting of US-Indian relations at the strategic level
Bush elevated relations with a 2008 civilian nuclear deal that ended an embargo imposed in 1974 after New Delhi tested a nuclear bomb. Bilateral trade went from $5.6 billion in 1990 to about 43 billion in 2008, a 675 percent rise. But Obama's early focus on Pakistan to fight the Taliban and emphasis on relations with China irked some in India, which had hoped to build on Bush's legacy. "In terms of important but second-tier issues -- trade, climate change, even defence sales and counter-terrorism -- relations are good, and may get better," said Stephen Cohen, a South Asia specialist at the Brookings Institution think tank.
"However, there seems to be a parting of the ways at the strategic level."
U.S. strategy for Afghanistan, focused partly on Pakistan which Washington sees as a necessary ally, has been criticised as ignoring the concerns of regional countries such as India, which competes with Islamabad for influence in Kabul. Reuters
Stephen Cohen is a very pro-Indian analysts. For him to make this big statement is a very
"However, there seems to be a parting of the ways at the strategic level."
GANDHINAGAR: Air Chief Marshal P V Naik said on Wednesday that India's "aircraft strength is inadequate and is just one third of China's air force.'' He said it would take at least three years for the situation to change as the IAF was in the process to augment its inventory.
Talking to the media at the South Western Air Command during his two-day visit to Gujarat, the IAF chief said: "IAF is known worldwide as a professional organisation for its capabilities. But India's aircraft strength is just one third of China's. Our present aircraft strength is inadequate -- it is not enough.''
"China is one of the many challenges, including terrorism, a low spectrum conflict that India is facing in the current geo-political situation. The country was seized of the problems and taking multi-pronged measures ranging from diplomatic to economic to face the challenges besides developing capabilities. We are playing it cool. This is also a part of the strategy,'' he said.
On reports of incursions by Chinese troops, he said as far as IAF was concerned, there were no incursions anywhere. He also sought to allay fears by saying that adequate deployment has been made on the border. "The coordination between Indian armed forces and intelligence agencies is much better now than what it was a year ago,'' Naik said.
The IAF chief said contracts have been signed between Russia and India for a fifth generation fighter and transport aircraft. "India proposes to buy at least 126 medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMCA) like F-18, F-16, Raphael and C-150 Hercules. One Airborne Warning & Control System (AWACS) has already arrived while two are expected by next year. Besides, we intend to buy heavy transport aircraft (global inquiry floated) and medium lift helicopters,'' said Naik. Times of India. IAF strength just one-third of China's: IAF chief. TNN 24 September 2009, 12:15am IST
ISLAMABAD: The education rate and literacy indicators in Pakistan are better than those in India, a United Nations Fund for Population (UNFPA) report said on Wednesday.
The report claimed Pakistan’s infant mortality ratio per 1,000 live births was 62, compared to India’s 53 per 1,000 live births.
Meanwhile, the maternal mortality ratio in the country was 320 per 100,000 live births, compared to 450 in India.
As per details regarding education, the report said that in Pakistan, 32.3 percent male and 60.4 percent female above 15 years of age were literate. 23.1 percent male and 45.5 percent female above the same age were literate in India.
Gross primary enrolment ratio was 101 male and 83 girls in Pakistan, while it was 114 males and 109 females in India.
The report said that out of the above-mentioned figures, 68 male and 72 female managed to reach grade five in Pakistan, while in India the number was 59 male and 49 females. app
President Obama announced that his actions will lead to the end of the war in Afghanistan. This announcement comes on the heals of the British directive announced by Gordon Brown and David Milliband—which we reported on yesterday. Let us now analyze President Obama’s statement about ending the war in Afghanistan.
Despite the bluster and possible temporary increase in boots on the ground in Afghanistan, the fact remains that neither the US, nor the UK can sustain the continuation of the war in West Asia. Three trillion Dollars and counting. Every new soldier costs $1 million to deploy. An additional 20,000 soldiers in Afghanistan will make a bigger dent in the budget than expected. This expenditure is hard to explain to the American people who are increasingly vocal about ending the war in Afghanistan.
Another surge is what the US army wants. This new surge will face an uphill battle in Congress. It will be a tough sell to the leftist corp. of the Democratic Party.
Britain's Gordon Brown is holding a summit which he bills as a “summit to discuss the exit strategy” from Afghanistan. He denies that this is an “Exit Summit”—but a conference that goes into the details of handing over the government to the top leadership of the Taliban—is an Exit Summit—no matter what euphemism Mr. Brown and Mr. Milliband use to describe it.
While Mr. Karzai’s wings have been clipped, negotiations are underway with the Talibs and Pakistan has more or less cleared Swat and Waziristan of the insurgents and foreign fighters, the next step is to bring the Iranians, Russians and the Chinese on board. Mr. Obama was doing exactly that in Beijing.
The Chinese hold $1 Trillion of US T-bills. They want the Americans out of Afghanistan.
The war in Afghanistan will end around 2011.
BEIJING — President Barack Obama said Wednesday his upcoming strategy in Afghanistan will "put us on a path towards ending the war" and that his goal is not to pass the conflict on to the next president.
Obama also declined to say he trusted Afghan President Hamid Karzai, offering praise to Karzai for holding his country together but saying: "He has some strengths, but he has some weaknesses."
"I'm less concerned about any individual than I am with a government as a whole that is having difficulty providing basic services to its people," Obama said in his latest blunt assessment of the Karzai government, whose competence is an essential part of a U.S. war effort now in its ninth year.
Obama is expected soon to announce a revamping of the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He is likely to send thousands more troops into Afghanistan to stabilize the deteriorating security there.
Many times, the White House has said Obama will reveal his decision in the next few weeks. Obama did so again in a series of TV interviews, saying his announcement will come by year's end.
Asked if his decision will end the war, Obama said: "This decision will put us on a path towards ending the war." Obama inherited the Afghanistan conflict and suggested he wants to be the one to end it.
"My preference would be not to hand off anything to the next president," Obama said. "One of the things I'd like is the next president to come in and say, `I've got a clean slate.'"
But there will be no drawdown of U.S. forces anytime soon. Obama has sought to repeatedly assure the world that the U.S. is not pulling out of Afghanistan, a case he plans to make to the American public.
Obama promised to tell the nation "in very clear terms, what exactly is at stake, what we intend to do, how we're going to succeed, how much it's going to cost, how long it's going to take."
He has a tough sell. Polling shows most Americans do not favor sending more troops to Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, details of Obama's deliberations and the views of some of his national security aides have appeared for weeks in news stories. The president echoed the concerns of Defense Secretary Robert Gates about those "leaks," saying he is probably angrier than Gates about them.
"We have these deliberations in the Situation Room for a reason, because we are making decisions that are life and death...," Obama said. "For people to be releasing information during the course of deliberations when we haven't made final decisions yet, I think is not appropriate."
Obama made his comments during his trip to Asia in interviews with NBC News, CNN and CBS News. Obama: Aim is to put US on path to end Afghan war (AP)
One of the most egregious statements made by President Musharraf and some members of the current Pakistani leadership is the opposition to ending the US war in Afghanistan. The statements were most probably coerced by the US Administration which wants a reason to continue the war. According to the hawks who want to continue the perpetual mimetic war in the Hindu Kush “The destabilization” of Pakistan has to prevented by the continuation of the insanity in Afghanistan. This is amazing illogic. The issues in Pakistan are a direct result of the bombing in Afghanistan. The creation of the new “Khmer Rouge” (TTP) in the New Ho Chi Minh train in FATA is a direct result of the war in Afghanistan. There was no bombs blowing up in Pakistan prior to the US invasion of Afghanistan. Pakistanis had never heard of any suicide bombing anywhere. The attacks on civilian targets in Peshawar (denied even by the TTP) were unheard of prior to the US invasion of Afghanistan.
With the Pakistan Army ending the active operation in Swat and Waziristan, the TTP in an act of desperation will continue to attack civilian targets. This is because some of their masters reside in Delhi and other capitals. India is using the TTP as a bargaining chip to keep Pakistan from gaining a pre-eminent position in Afghanistan. It is getting nervous, because its main assets have either been killed or had to find refuge in safe havens in Afghanistan.
The Indians cant seem to win. They spend a lot of money but get treated really badly. The Russians have been pushing Delhi around for a decade. Their strong-along games on the Admiral Gorskov is a classic case study of what not to do in defense procurement. Bharat (aka India) constantly complains to Moscow about the lack of Transfer of Technology (ToT).
Bharat is the only major military power of the world that has been unable to produce its own indigenous aircraft. Its Purchase Order of $10 Billion for foreign planes is an admission of its failure to create local planes. The legendry incompetence of the Indian Department of Defense has led to many fiascos like the LCA which has been in design for the past 25 years. Even if the new GE engines can replace the failed Kevari engines, the plane is 1980s vintage and has no military value. The Tejas can is unable to replace Bharat’s aging fleet of Flying Coffins (the arcane Russian Migs that cannot defy gravity in Bharat).
The US for all its talk about strategic partnership and “natural ally” has not offered Bharat (aka India) the latest arms technology. The F-18s are slated to be discontinued. Most NATO members do not want them. Bharat is ready to spend $10 billion. One would imagine that Lockheed Martin would go head over heels to appease Delhi. The standoffish attitude of Martin has surprise and annoyed many Indian arms purchasers.
If Bharat makes a decision against the Mig-35s there will be a huge cost of pay. Russia has already designed the FGFA, though it will allow Bharat a face saving paint job on the planes (all in the name of “joint production”. If Bharat does not buy the Mig 35s, that deal would be further jeopardy.
Lockheed Martin will not commit commercial suicide by giving up the “Coke Formula” to the Indians. The planes will be sequestered in separate hangers, and complete with intrusive surprise inspections and all. The Indian Navy has already decided that it does not want the F-22s. If the Indian Air Force does decide on the F-22s, it will then have to setup separate system of maintenance for the Russian planes (which make up the bulk of its fleet) and a more secure one for the US manufactured plane.
MUMBAI -- Field trials by six aircraft makers -- including Boeing Co. and Dassault Aviation SA -- for an estimated $10 billion Indian Air Force contract will likely be completed by July, an Indian minister said Wednesday.
"They (the trials) are expected to get over some time in June or July next year because testing has to be done across both the winter and summer seasons," M.M. Pallam Raju, junior defense minister, said on the sidelines of an industry conference.
Boeing is offering the F/A-18 fighter jet for the 126 multi-role combat aircraft deal, while Dassault has put up the Rafale.
Vivek Lall, vice president and India head for Boeing Integrated Defense Systems, said in October that the F/A-18 recently completed the second phase of trials in India's Leh, Jaisalmer and Bangalore areas.
The third phase will start in the U.S. in February.
Lockheed Martin Corp.'s F-16 Falcon, Russian Aircraft Corp.'s MiG-35, Saab AB's JAS-39 Gripen, as well as the Eurofighter Typhoon -- produced by a consortium of European companies--are also competing for the contract.
India plans to buy the 126 jets, as well as advanced helicopters and other defense equipment, to modernize its mainly Soviet-vintage defense forces. The Indian Air Force has 1,700 aircraft, including helicopters and transport planes, according to its Web site.
India, which is among the world's top arms importers, has earmarked 1.42 trillion rupees ($30.7 billion) as capital expenditure on defense for the current fiscal year through March 2010, up from 1.06 trillion rupees in the previous year.
Mr. Raju said 30%-40% of this year's defense budget has been spent so far.
Under current rules, foreign companies which receive import orders in excess of 3 billion rupees must draw at least 30% of that order from domestic suppliers or make a similar sized investment within India, in what is known as an offset.
"The offset obligation for this (126-fighter jet) order is 50%," said Mr. Raju. NOVEMBER 18, 2009, India: Fighter Jet Deal Trials Likely to End July. By DEEPALI GUPTA and SANTANU CHOUDHURY
If Bharat does decide on the F-16s, this is the first time that opposing countries will get American Aircrafts. A Pakistani F-16 facing off an Indian F-16 would create for interesting comparisons.
911: World Trade Centers attacked: Amidst the 1600 degree Fahrenheit flames of plane crash, the death of more than 3000 Americans (including 300 Muslims), and total destruction of several blocks of the Financial district of New York, the US authorities were able to retrieve the only surviving artifact out of the debris—the passport of one of the culprits. This document was retrieved within minutes of the crash and set the stage.
2001: OBL denies any responsibility of the attack. Several tapes later appear that show OBL acknowledging the attacks. Michael Sheuer of the CIA OBL Analysis cell in Afghanistan discusses these at length. Pictures of OBL widely differ in the tapes leading to conspiracy theories and suspicions that some of the tapes might have been engineered by agencies.
2002: Various players of the Bush Administration including Richard Armitage threaten Pakistan “of being bombed into the stone age”. When reminded of the long history of US-Pakistani relations since the 50s, Armitage responds “History begins today”.
US invades Afghanistan to avenge the attack, and eliminate all enemies: Pakistan advised the US, not to attack the country, and had offered 5000 marines to nab the evil guys. Pakistan also advised the US to negotiate with the moderate elements of the “T” and bring about a regime change. The Bush Administration ignores sanity and uses 20,000 pounder Daisy Cutters (one step below a nuclear bomb).
2002: As a result of carpet bombing the entire country a stream of refugees head to Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Pakistan. The very same thin g happened during the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. Instead of understanding the consequences of terrorizing the Afghan population with bombs, the US accuses Pakistan of “harboring” terrorists.
2002: The US attacks Iraq allegedly to find WMDs. None are found but 1 million Iraqis die and 20 million are rendered homeless.
2003: Ralph Peter’s egregious map truncating Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran to create new smaller states is published by a defense department journal give rise to conspiracy theories about US intentions about West Asia in general and Pakistan in particular.
2003: A drumbeat of Indian propaganda against Pakistan accuses it of interference. The US is fed the WMD type of information from three main spy agnecies, RAW and Mossad and Afghan KHAD.
In 2004, the US begins bombing Pakistani territory-either with the connivance or the knowledge of the compliant Pakistani president. The bombings create a
2005: There is a litany of US demands “to do more”. In response to these incessant demands, the Pakistani military launches several attacks into FATA.
2006: President Hamid Karzai directly threatens Pakistan. More than a dozen “Indian Consulates” are allowed on Afghan soil. The Afghan intelligence agency is patterned on RAW and ominously renamed RAMA.
2007: Reports emerge of massive Indian infiltration into the ranks of the insurgents.
In 2008 a spate of foreign sponsored “reprisal attacks” from foreign armed, foreign trained mercenaries begin in Pakistan.
2008: Benazir Bhutto is assassinated in Liaqat bagh—the 2nd Pakistani leader to be murdered on the same spot. The world suspects Mr. Zardari who in turn blames the TTP for the murder of the politician.
2008: President Musharraf is accused of duplicity by the Americans. US seeks more compliant leadership in Pakistan. Missteps by President Musharraf lead to his resignation and eventual self-exile in London.
2009: Pakistan attacks and successfully retakes Swat which had become a hotbed of Indian sponsored militants. Pictures of uncircumcised men with long beard raise speculation of Indian agents working as mercenaries to destabilize Pakistan.
2009: Pakistan eliminates vestiges of the so called TTP in South Waziristan. The TTP funded and armed from Afghanistan increase their waves of attacks on innocent Pakistani civilians in all areas of Pakistani territory.
November 2009: The language used, restrictions imposed, the tiny amount of “aid” ($6.5 Billion for Pakistan vs. $143 Billion for Afghanistan vs $605 Billion for Iraq) and the accusation listed in the Kerry Lugar Bill “Aid to Pakistan” are severely criticized in Pakistan.
November 2009: Hillary Clinton faces a barrage of belligerent accusations in Pakistan and a lukewarm welcome.
November 2009: The corruption charges against President Asif Zardari stand resurrected as the National Assembly fails to pass the NRO (amnesty for the misdeeds of politicians)
November 2009: US National Security Advisor James Jones tries to smooth over ruffled feathers of Pakistani civilian and military government. He delivers a personal message to President Zardari asking him to continue his offensive against the “Taliban”. Pakistanis suspect, it is part of a US Exit strategy.
November 2009: According to the New York Times “the latest internal government estimates place the cost of adding 40,000 American troops and sharply expanding the Afghan security forces, as favored by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top American and allied commander in Afghanistan, at $40 billion to $54 billion a year, the officials said”. In a front page story, the paper essentially says that the US can no longer afford the war in Afghanistan
Even if fewer troops are sent, or their mission is modified, the rough formula used by the White House, of about $1 million per soldier a year, appears almost constant.
November 2009: Media reports emerge about how the US can no longer afford the 40,000 additional troops request by General McChrystal.
November 2009: A new drumbeat of media and US administration pressure wants Pakistan to invade North Waziristan, which the US claims in the home of the Haqqani Network—much hated by US generals. Will the Pakistani army once again buckle to American pressure, attack North Waziristan and then face more domestic attacks. Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi says his country will decide on its own, according to its priorities and resources, on how to fight militants. He says the international community recognizes Pakistan's sacrifices and unity in the face of Islamist extremists. He says his country does not need to do more or less because someone is saying so.
November 2009: The TTP denies role in many of the bombings in Pakistan. Indian arms are discovered in Waziristan. The presence of Blackwater/Xe and Dynacorp, the uniquely unprecedented expansion of the US Embassy, the maniacal statements of Admiral Mullen about “existential threats to Pakistan”, and Hillary Clinton’s strange rhetoric about Pakistan’s real enemies (India is not an enemy) fuel conspiracy theories about US intentions in Pakistan—and increase Anti-Americanism.
November 2009: Obama Administration announced another new Afghan policy (part of about a dozen re-assessments). A slight troop surge and plans to evacuate most of the country to garrisons seems to be the plan. This is exactly what happened to the British when they were thrown out of Afghanistan and the Russians. The sitting targets will be relentlessly attacked by the insurgents ‘till they eventually evacuate back to the States.
Rupee News has been predicting for about two years that inevitability of a US withdrawal and an end to the Afghan war in 2011, when some of the coalition partners will leave Kabul. More than 70% of the US public now opposes continued occupation of Afghanistan, and this number will grow when the Republicans begin hammering the Dems before the 2012 elections.
All Indian sopas are bad. Some are worse than others. Bollywood has perfected the art of transmitting visual pain through their soaps. The saga of the Indian rust buckets (air craft carriers) is a funny one. Bharat is using a 50s vintage bucket—which is now being replaced by a very expensive one—if Delhi and Moscow can ever agree to a price tag.The normal life of a ship is 20 years. This aircraft carrier was obsoleted by the British in the 80s. The huge expense has not project Bharati power anywhere. It has been unable to use this colossal white elephant anywhere. Not in one situation has it been able to project any power. It is like taking a Kia to race car to impress people that you have a car.the Viraat rust bucket hosts 18 obsolete Harrier planes. The words “power” and Viraat should not be used in the same sentence. it is anything but powerful.
The Indian Navy's lone aircraft carrier INS Viraat will complete 50 years in service Wednesday, a defence official said Monday.
'The navy chief (Admiral Nirmal Verma) will be going to Mumbai tomorrow (Tuesday) and he will also be on board the vessel, on the day she turns 50,' said a senior navy official, requesting anonymity.
INS Viraat, which has a crew of 1,500 personnel, has just been given a life-extending re-fit at the Cochin Shipyard Ltd, where it was docked for the past year.
The refit has increased the aircraft carrier's sea life with the Indian Navy till 2015.
The 28,000-tonne INS Viraat, the Centaur class aircraft carrier, was originally commissioned in the British Royal Navy as HMS Hermes Nov 18, 1959.
The Indian Navy acquired it in 1987 after it had served the Royal Navy for nearly 28 years.
'An extensive refit - with brand new fire control equipment, navigation radars, improved nuclear, biological and chemical protection and deck landing aids - has increased the life of the vessel into the next decade,' the official said.
The aircraft carrier gives the Indian Navy an edge over the Chinese navy, which does not have one.
The Indian Navy's second aircraft carrier - Russian-built Admiral Gorshkov - is expected to be inducted by 2012.
INS Viraat is pivotal to the navy's aim to project India's naval and air power well beyond its shores. It provides operation ground for Sea Harrier combat jets. It can carry up to 18 combat aircraft and is suited for supporting amphibious operations and conducting anti-submarine warfare. India's sole aircraft carrier turns 50 Wednesday 2009-11-16 17:50:00. Sify News
The drama of the rust bucket’s repalcement by another rust bucket—this one for $3 Billion continues unabated
New Delhi: A 40-member Russian delegation has arrived in India to discuss the price hike for refurbishment of aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov, even as both the sides have "dug in their heels" on what they are willing to settle as the final price, an Indian Navy official said on Monday.
The price negotiations for Gorshkov, to be commissioned in the Indian Navy as INS Vikramditya, have dragged on for long with both sides refusing to budge from their stands. "The Russian delegation is in town for the price negotiation of the aircraft carrier. But the current position is that both the sides (Indian and Russia) have dug in their heels as far as final price is concerned. What will matter now is who blinks first," the senior Indian Navy official told.
The Russians are demanding $2.9 billion for the refurbishment work, whereas Indians are asking them to climb down to $2.1 billion. However, the official said that till the time a final price tag is fixed for the 45,000 tonne Kiev class aircraft carrier, the work on the vessel will progress at the usual pace.
"That is the agreement between the two sides that the work on the aircraft carrier would not be stalled. The delivery date for the aircraft carrier fixed at 2012 will be honoured. India has released about over 650 million dollars so far for the refit work," the official added.
The price negotiations failed to make any headway even during Defence Minister A.K. Antony's visit to Russia.
India had paid around $600 million initially after an agreement between the two countries in 2004, according to which the old aircraft carrier was gifted as free but India was to pay $974 million to modify and upgrade it in accordance with Indian Navy's specifications.
In 2007, however, the Russians said they had made a mistake in their calculations to repair and modify Gorshkov, and demanded another $1.2 billion. Recently, they have added still another $700 million saying that modifications, and then sea trials, would be more expensive than estimated by them earlier. The total demand by the Russians now touches $2.9 billion, instead of $974 million as originally contracted.
The delivery of the aircraft carrier has also been pushed from 2008 to 2012-13, although repair work on it is continuing without break at the Sevmash shipyard in northern Russia's Arctic coast. Russian team in India to negotiate Gorshkov price. (Source: IANS) Published: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 at 16:45 IST
Massive torchlight parades, clashes between the police and demonstrators, vows to bring the Nepalese government to its knees, a tottering United Nations peace process, and barely concealed great-power sparring between China and India. Clearly, Nepal is in crisis.
This week, a branch of Nepal's Maoists declared the autonomy of the Nepalese state of Kirat, a move that might lead to the total collapse of the Nepalese peace process and the return of the Maoists to insurgency against the central government:
The agitating Unified Maoists' Party has declared the Autonomous State of Monday, November 9, 2009. The Maoist Party politburo member and the coordinator of Kirat State Uprising Committee, Mr Gopal Kirati, amid the presence of hundreds of Maoist cadres, had made the declaration in Diktel of Khotang District. [1]
So far, Western media have reported remotely and somewhat uncomprehendingly on the massive demonstrations in Kathmandu led by the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), with a marked lack of interest. This perhaps reflects the shared desire of the Indian, Chinese and Western governments not to inflame the situation with excessive attention and rhetoric. The CPN-M has vowed to bring 300,000 activists to the capital to shut down the government. Inexorably and almost invisibly, Nepal has emerged as the focus of the competition between India and China to seize the strategic advantage along the Himalayas.
India moved first, helping to orchestrate the fall of the incompetent and stubbornly independent 240-year-old Nepalese monarchy in 2007. Nepal's King Gyanendra had conducted a bloody, ineffectual campaign against a Nepalese Maoist insurgency, incurring New Delhi's wrath in the process by turning to Beijing for arms. India's foreign secretary at the time, Shyam Saran, arranged an unholy alliance of the Maoist insurgency and disaffected pro-Indian politicians in Kathmandu. This alliance toppled the monarchy and put a nascent parliamentary democracy in its place, in a scenario reminiscent of the cycle of Indian-inspired unrest that extinguished the monarchy and independence of the Kingdom of Sikkim in 1975.
It was assumed that the Maoists, author of a good number of bloody outrages during the insurgency, would emerge from Nepal's parliamentary elections as a relatively unpopular fringe party, leaving control of parliament to a melange of pro-Indian middle-of-the-road parties. However, in a development that undoubtedly caused India a great deal of dismay and may have even disconcerted the Leninist stalwarts of the Nepalese Maoists, the 2008 elections gave the Maoists - organized as the CPN-M under their leader, Pushpa Kamal Dahal (aka Prachanda) a commanding plurality of 38%, twice as many votes as the nearest challenger.
Prachanda was sworn in as prime minister on August 15, 2008, after months of maneuvering and negotiations. Instead of paying his first official visit to New Delhi - as was the tradition of Nepalese prime ministers under the monarchy - Prachanda jetted to Beijing for the closing ceremonies of the Beijing Summer Olympic Games. He further endeared himself to China with a vigorous crackdown on anti-Chinese demonstrations by Tibetan emigres that had ignited after the unrest in Tibet and in the run-up to the Olympics. The Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses, an Indian think-tank affiliated with the Defense Ministry, [2] described the accelerated bloom in Sino-Nepali relations under the Prachanda government:
In fact, 12 high-level Chinese delegations, including two military teams, visited Nepal in the course of 2008-2009. During these visits, China has repeatedly assured economic, technological and military aid to Nepal. The Maoist-led government was also asked to adopt a "One-China" policy, not to allow Nepalese land be used for anti-China activities, take strong action against Tibetan refugees and grant special facilities for Chinese investments in strategic sectors. Beijing has also initiated track-II diplomacy with Nepal and invited Nepalese scholars to undertake visits to Chinese think-tanks.
Some of the important visits from China to Nepal were:
February 25, 2009: Assistant Chinese Foreign Minister Hu Zhengyue led a 14-member delegation.
February 19, 2009: Liu Hongcai, vice minister of the International Department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC), led a delegation to take part in the inaugural ceremony of the 8th convention of the Unified Marxist Leninist in Butwal.
February 10, 2009: A high-level Peoples' Liberation Army (PLA) delegation, one of the largest delegations in two months, arrived in Nepal.
December 6, 2008: Lieutenant General Ma Xiaotian, deputy chief of General Staff of the PLA headed a 10-member delegation. China agreed to provide US$2.61 million worth of security assistance to Nepal.
December 1, 2008: China's Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi visited Nepal.
July 24, 2008: Chinese Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs, Wu Dawei, visited Nepal. He pledged a grant assistance of 100 million yuan (US$15 million) as economic and technical cooperation.
March 4, 2008: Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs of China, He Yafei, undertook a three-day visit to Nepal.
Nepal's engagements with China have also increased manifold with the visit of delegations both at state and non-state levels. Apart from visits at the official levels, private visits by political leaders, journalists and academicians are also sponsored by China as part of public diplomacy. During these visits, Chinese authorities have reportedly assured all kinds of support to the Maoist government in its efforts aimed at laying the foundation for a "New Nepal".
For the Nepalese Maoists, growing Chinese engagement is a win-win situation in line with their "policy of equidistance", which has been deliberately adopted to counter-balance India's influence in Nepal.
The increasing level of bilateral engagement also indicates that China is wooing Nepal as a new strategic partner. This has been confirmed by the statements made by various Chinese officials. For example, on February 16, 2009, Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi said in Beijing that China would prefer to work with Nepal on the basis of a strategic partnership.
In fact, Vice Minister of International Department of the Central Committee of Communist Party of China, Liu Hongcai, said in Kathmandu in February 2009 that "we oppose any move to interfere in the internal affairs of Nepal by any force". Similarly, on November 4, 2008, Liu Hong Chai, international bureau chief of the Communist Party of China, stated, "China will not tolerate any meddling from any other country in the internal affairs of Nepal - our traditional and ancient neighbor.
In passing, it should be noted that the Nepalese Maoists are not enamored of post-Mao Chinese communism, describing it as "revisionist". Their distaste for China's current leadership was reinforced by the fact that China sold arms to King Gyanendra to combat their insurgency.
The Nepalese Maoists, together with Peru's ferocious Shining Path insurgents, have affiliated themselves with the Revolutionary International Movement, organized by American Marxist Bob Avakian.
Avakian supported the notorious Gang of Four in China and left the United States for France to avoid criminal charges after an obstreperous demonstration in 1979 at the White House sought to disrupt paramount leader Deng Xiaoping's visit.
Prachanda considers his "Prachanda Path" as embodying the line of pure ideological succession from Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin and Mao Zedong, and the CPN-M's reachout to China was very much a matter of geopolitical necessary, not ideological affinity.
Prachanda had also stated his intention to renegotiate the friendship treaty between Nepal and India, characterizing it as "unequal". In January 2009, he also raised India's ire in a row over the Pashupatinath temple in Kathmandu. [3] The Hindu temple of Lord Shiva is a UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization World Heritage site and also served as the seat of Nepal's national deity.
Traditionally, its priests have been Brahmins from south India, but the CPN-M government engineered their removal (with a helping hand in the form of a mob allegedly provided by the Maoists' militant Young Communist League) and replacement by Nepalese priests. Much unhappiness ensued, with the Indians joined in their outrage by ex-king Gyanendra. In the wake of an unfavorable Supreme Court ruling, the Indian priests were reinstated.
The CPN-M government finally came a cropper in May 2009 in a dispute over the resistance of the army chief, Rookmangood Katawal, following the prime minister's orders on the matter of bringing new recruits into the Nepalese army - a sensitive issue that affected the clout and integration status of the Maoists' forces under the peace agreement.
Prachanda removed Katawal, but President Ram Baran Yadav reinstated him the same day. Prachanda declared Yadav's move unconstitutional; the Maoists withdrew from the government and went into opposition. Madhav Kumar Nepal, former general secretary of the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) took over as prime minister.
Beyond the maneuverings and disagreements - exacerbated by the ambiguity of the peace agreement, the bad faith and suspicion by all parties and, one would speculate, India's desire to wedge the CPN-M's support and cobble together a pro-Indian majority in parliament - was the shadow of Sino-Indian competition. The Nepalese army enjoys close relations with its Indian counterpart, and Katawal was seen as a pro-Indian force in Nepalese politics. India assiduously tends to its relationships with pro-Indian politicians inside Nepal and the current government is identified as pro-Indian. Even the CPN-M is rumored to contain pro-Indian assets or even factions.
The current pro-Indian government has attempted, with little success, to soldier on without the CPN-M. Nepal has suffered through six months of political gridlock as a result.
The Maoists have insisted they will not return to parliament until the principle of "civilian control" - apparently the supremacy of parliament and the prime minister over the president - is acknowledged.
Prachanda visited China in October at the head of an eight-person CPN-M delegation. It held four rounds of talks with the CCP. In a rather remarkable display of consideration towards an opposition party leader, Chinese President Hu Jintao hosted Prachanda as guest of honor at China's 11th National Games in Shandong and met with him privately for 25 minutes.
It is unclear what explicit or implicit encouragement Prachanda received from China. Beijing is probably not interested in inflaming its tense relations with India by openly taking sides in the current crisis.
After Prachanda's visit, the Telegraph Nepal reported [4]:
[Prachanda] revealed that "China has the support to the agitation sponsored by his party". Prachanda also revealed that he has brought only positive thinking from his week-long trip to China. "The outcome of my visit to China is that we need not focus ourselves on agitation and war rather focus on development and peace," Prachanda added. He ... maintained that the Maoists' party agitation enjoys the Chinese support. He however did not reveal what sort of support will the Chinese regime extend to the Maoists' party of Nepal in their so-called agitation.
What undoubtedly concerns the CPN-M's adversaries inside Nepal is the fact that Prachanda has the resources and ambition to drive events inside the country, even if he is bluffing about the extent of his Chinese support.
Telegraph Nepal's report that Nandkishor Pasan, the commander of the Maoist's military force, the People's Liberation Army, is now in China and that a key CPN-M military strategist also plans to go to China does nothing to dispel the impression that Prachanda enjoys China's support for his actions. In any case, after his return to Nepal, Prachanda announced a program of mass action designed to bring the government to heel and facilitate the CPN-M's return to the government under favorable conditions. The CPN-M organized mass demonstrations around the country, cutting the highway links between Kathmandu and outlying districts, and leading confrontational marches to the government secretariat, the Singha Durbar.
The Maoists also received support from a surprising source, the United Nations. The UN, concerned that Nepal will be unable to generate a new constitution, that the peace process will collapse, and that the aggrieved Maoists will restart their insurgency, has urged the present administration to back down and form a government of national unity with the Maoists.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's remarks at the end of October in support of a national unity government , made in response to a request to extend the mandate of the UN Mission in Nepal, which is trying to supervise the integration of Maoist forces into the army under the peace agreement. were construed as interference in Nepalese affairs by the current government.
Ban's remarks no doubt irritated India and the United States; the US, while keeping clear of the Nepalese imbroglio and supporting the UN process, is undoubtedly not pleased at the prospect that the Nepalese Maoists - still on the State Department's terror list - will come out on top again. Now, it is reported that Prachanda approved the declaration of autonomy in Kirat. By doing so, the CPN-M has inched up to, if not actually crossed, a red line that might trigger the collapse of the peace process and a return to the insurgency.
We waited for the next book and when it arrived at the book store, we were there in lines to grab it. I spent my early years on Enid Blyton and The Hardy Boys—then graduated to James Hadley Chase and Earl Stanley Gardner. After that the pressures of High School did not ever allow me to read at the same pace—which could never be revived again. As one who grew up no Enid Blyton and her mystery stories reading the reality about the author was not a good day to start a Friday evening. The life and times of Ms. Blyton were surely different than what any of us had imagined.
I may decide to skip the move and live with my own impressions of one of the greatest children’s authors of our time.
Enid Blyton, the creator of Noddy, the Famous Five, the Secret Seven and Malory Towers, and whose books are still popular among children, was in
reality a “cold-hearted mother and vindictive adultress who set out to destroy her former husband”.
A UK television biopic, starring Helena Bonham Carter as the author of 753 books, which sold 600 million copies around the world. Her works still sell eight million copies a year.
Blyton lived at her cottage, Old Thatch, near the Thames at Bourne End, then at Green Hedges, a mock-Tudor house in Beaconsfield. Bonham Carter told a UK tabloid, “Enid’s self-awareness was brilliant and she was incredibly controlling, too. I was attracted to the role because she was bonkers. She was an emotional mess and quite barking mad. What I found extraordinary, bordering on insane, was the way that Enid reinvented her own life. She was allergic to reality — if there was something she didn't like then she either ignored it or re-wrote her life.”
“She didn't like her mother, so let her colleagues assume she was dead. When her mother died, she refused to attend the funeral. Then the first husband didn't work out, so she scrubbed him out. There’s also a scene in the film where her dog dies, but she carries on pretending he’s still alive because she can't bear the truth.” “It was my job to understand how she became like this in the first place, not to judge her,” says Carter. Emotionally, Blyton remained a little girl. Her father left her mother when Enid was 12. “When Enid consulted a gynaecologist about her failure to conceive, she was diagnosed as having an immature uterus and had to have surgery and hormone treatment before she could have children.”
However, she was unable to relate as a normal mother with her two daughters Gillian and Imogen, with her first husband, Hugh Pollock. She is said to be distant and unkind to her younger daughter Imogen.
Imogen Smallwood, 74, told the tabloid: “My mother was arrogant, insecure and without a trace of maternal instinct. Her approach to life was childlike, and she could be spiteful, like a teenager.”
Bonham Carter says about Imogen, “We had email correspondence before Imogen visited the set. We agreed that I wasn't going to try to impersonate her mother because this is a drama. Imogen is sensitive, but was very supportive and gave me a few tips, such as how her mother did everything at immense speed because she was ruled by the watch. Enid's domestic life was seen as an interruption to her writing, which was her escapism.”
There is a poignant scene in the film where her daughters are banished to the nursery as Enid holds a tea party at home for her fans, or 'friends'. “Enid is one of the kids at the Famous Five tea parties — the jelly and ice-cream are as much for her as they are for her fans,” explains Carter.
Enid’s first marriage lasted 19 years, but as Enid's career took off in the Thirties, a depressed Hugh took to drinking while she managed to fit affairs in between writing. “The marriage deteriorated and Hugh moved out. She mocked him in later adventure stories, such as The Mystery Of The Burnt Cottage, as the clueless cop, PC Theophilus Goon,” says Daily Mail.
She then married surgeon Kenneth Darrell Waters, with whom she had a fulfilling sex life. Enid was also flirtatiousness and entertained servicemen to dinner while her husband was away at war and found them and their attention attractive. Reveals the tabloid, “Directors chose to omit some aspects of Blyton’s apparently sensual side, such as visitors arriving to find her playing tennis naked and suggestions of a lesbian affair with her children's nanny, Dorothy Richards. But the drama, which has been given the thumbs-up by the Enid Blyton Society, does highlight the author's cruel streak. When Hugh remarried, as she had done, Blyton was so furious that she banned her daughters from seeing their father.” TOI.Enid Blyton was an adulterous bully 13 November 2009, 10:53pm IST
Here we go again—an old story rehashed by the paragon of news veracity—the same newspaper that ran the story about the Iraqi WMDs multiple times. It is now in the forefront of war hysteria against another Muslim country. It is again repeating the same old story that was repeated a decade ago. The timing of this story is significant—it is being published while President Barack Obama is on his tour of Beijing.
ISLAMABAD: Pakistan on Friday dismissed a media report about Beijing providing it with weapons-grade uranium and a blueprint for an atomic bomb and
described it as an effort to divert attention from support being extended by "some states" to India's nuclear programme. Foreign office spokesman Abdul Basit described the allegations made in an article in the Washington Post newspaper as "baseless". "Pakistan strongly rejects the assertions in the article that is evidently timed to malign Pakistan and China," he said. "This is yet another attempt to divert attention from the overt and covert support being extended by some states to the Indian nuclear programme since its inception and intensified more recently in stark contradiction to their self-avowed commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty," he said. Pakistan and China have "comprehensive and all-dimensional cooperation", which includes civilian nuclear cooperation for peaceful purposes, Basit said. "This has always been above board. Pakistan and China have always respected their respective international obligations and non-proliferation norms," he said. Citing an account provided by disgraced nuclear scientist A Q Khan, the Washington Post reported on Friday that China provided Pakistan enough weapons-grade uranium for two atomic bombs and the blueprint for a simple nuclear weapon in 1982.
The unsubstantiated Washington Post story is a rehash of old wine in new bottle type of reporting. It is this type of reporting about the Iraqi WMDs that led up to the frenzy of the war on Iraq.
In 1982, a Pakistani military C-130 left the western Chinese city of Urumqi with a highly unusual cargo: enough weapons-grade uranium for two atomic bombs, according to accounts written by the father of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program, Abdul Qadeer Khan, and provided to The Washington Post.
The uranium transfer in five stainless-steel boxes was part of a broad-ranging, secret nuclear deal approved years earlier by Mao Zedong and Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto that culminated in an exceptional, deliberate act of proliferation by a nuclear power, according to the accounts by Khan, who is under house arrest in Pakistan.
U.S. officials say they have known about the transfer for decades and once privately confronted the Chinese -- who denied it -- but have never raised the issue in public or sought to impose direct sanctions on China for it. President Obama, who said in April that "the world must stand together to prevent the spread of these weapons," plans to discuss nuclear proliferation issues while visiting Beijing on Tuesday.
According to Khan, the uranium cargo came with a blueprint for a simple weapon that China had already tested, supplying a virtual do-it-yourself kit that significantly speeded Pakistan's bomb effort. The transfer also started a chain of proliferation: U.S. officials worry that Khan later shared related Chinese design information with Iran; in 2003, Libya confirmed obtaining it from Khan's clandestine network.
China's refusal to acknowledge the transfer and the unwillingness of the United States to confront the Chinese publicly demonstrate how difficult it is to counter nuclear proliferation. Although U.S. officials say China is now much more attuned to proliferation dangers, it has demonstrated less enthusiasm than the United States for imposing sanctions on Iran over its nuclear efforts, a position Obama wants to discuss.
Although Chinese officials have for a quarter-century denied helping any nation attain a nuclear capability, current and former U.S. officials say Khan's accounts confirm the U.S. intelligence community's long-held conclusion that China provided such assistance.
"Upon my personal request, the Chinese Minister . . . had gifted us 50 kg [kilograms] of weapon-grade enriched uranium, enough for two weapons," Khan wrote in a previously undisclosed 11-page narrative of the Pakistani bomb program that he prepared after his January 2004 detention for unauthorized nuclear commerce.
"The Chinese gave us drawings of the nuclear weapon, gave us kg50 enriched uranium," he said in a separate account sent to his wife several months earlier.
China's Foreign Ministry last week declined to address Khan's specific assertions, but it said that as a member of the global Non-Proliferation Treaty since 1992, "China strictly adheres to the international duty of prevention of proliferation it shoulders and strongly opposes . . . proliferation of nuclear weapons in any forms."
Asked why the U.S. government has never publicly confronted China over the uranium transfer, State Department spokesman Philip J. Crowley said, "The United States has worked diligently and made progress with China over the past 25 years. As to what was or wasn't done during the Reagan administration, I can't say."
Khan's exploits have been described in multiple books and public reports since British and U.S. intelligence services unmasked the deeds in 2003. But his own narratives -- not yet seen by U.S. officials -- provide fresh details about China's aid to Pakistan and its reciprocal export to China of sensitive uranium-enrichment technology.
A spokesman for the Pakistani Embassy in Washington declined to comment for this article. Pakistan has never allowed the U.S. government to question Khan or other top Pakistani officials directly, prompting Congress to demand in legislation approved in September that future aid be withheld until Obama certifies that Pakistan has provided "relevant information from or direct access to Pakistani nationals" involved in past nuclear commerce.
Insider vs. government
The Post obtained Khan's detailed accounts from Simon Henderson, a former journalist at the Financial Times who is now a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and who has maintained correspondence with Khan. In a first-person account about his contacts with Khan in the Sept. 20 edition of the London Sunday Times, Henderson disclosed several excerpts from one of the documents.
Henderson said he agreed to The Post's request for a copy of that letter and other documents and narratives written by Khan because he believes an accurate understanding of Pakistan's nuclear history is relevant for U.S. policymaking. The Post independently confirmed the authenticity of the material; it also corroborated much of the content through interviews in Pakistan and other countries.
Although Khan disputes various assertions by book authors, the narratives are particularly at odds with Pakistan's official statements that he exported nuclear secrets as a rogue agent and implicated only former government officials who are no longer living. Instead, he repeatedly states that top politicians and military officers were immersed in the country's foreign nuclear dealings.
Khan has complained to friends that his movements and contacts are being unjustly controlled by the government, whose bidding he did -- providing a potential motive for his disclosures.
Overall, the narratives portray his deeds as a form of sustained, high-tech international horse-trading, in which Khan and a series of top generals successfully leveraged his access to Europe's best centrifuge technology in the 1980s to obtain financial assistance or technical advice from foreign governments that wanted to advance their own efforts.
"The speed of our work and our achievements surprised our worst enemies and adversaries and the West stood helplessly by to see a Third World nation, unable even to produce bicycle chains or sewing needles, mastering the most advanced nuclear technology in the shortest possible span of time," Khan boasts in the 11-page narrative he wrote for Pakistani intelligence officials about his dealings with foreigners while head of a key nuclear research laboratory.
Exchanges with Beijing
According to one of the documents, a five-page summary by Khan of his government's dealmaking with China, the terms of the nuclear exchange were set in a mid-1976 conversation between Mao and Bhutto. Two years earlier, neighboring India had tested its first nuclear bomb, provoking Khan -- a metallurgist working at a Dutch centrifuge manufacturer -- to offer his services to Bhutto.
Khan said he and two other Pakistani officials -- including then-Foreign Secretary Agha Shahi, since deceased -- worked out the details when they traveled to Beijing later that year for Mao's funeral. Over several days, Khan said, he briefed three top Chinese nuclear weapons officials -- Liu Wei, Li Jue and Jiang Shengjie -- on how the European-designed centrifuges could swiftly aid China's lagging uranium-enrichment program. China's Foreign Ministry did not respond to questions about the officials' roles.
"Chinese experts started coming regularly to learn the whole technology" from Pakistan, Khan states, staying in a guesthouse built for them at his centrifuge research center. Pakistani experts were dispatched to Hanzhong in central China, where they helped "put up a centrifuge plant," Khan said in an account he gave to his wife after coming under government pressure. "We sent 135 C-130 plane loads of machines, inverters, valves, flow meters, pressure gauges," he wrote. "Our teams stayed there for weeks to help and their teams stayed here for weeks at a time."
In return, China sent Pakistan 15 tons of uranium hexafluoride (UF6), a feedstock for Pakistan's centrifuges that Khan's colleagues were having difficulty producing on their own. Khan said the gas enabled the laboratory to begin producing bomb-grade uranium in 1982. Chinese scientists helped the Pakistanis solve other nuclear weapons challenges, but as their competence rose, so did the fear of top Pakistani officials that Israel or India might preemptively strike key nuclear sites.
Mohammed Zia ul-Haq, the nation's military ruler, "was worried," Khan said, and so he and a Pakistani general who helped oversee the nation's nuclear laboratories were dispatched to Beijing with a request in mid-1982 to borrow enough bomb-grade uranium for a few weapons.
After winning Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping's approval, Khan, the general and two others flew aboard a Pakistani C-130 to Urumqi. Khan says they enjoyed barbecued lamb while waiting for the Chinese military to pack the small uranium bricks into lead-lined boxes, 10 single-kilogram ingots to a box, for the flight to Islamabad, Pakistan's capital.
According to Khan's account, however, Pakistan's nuclear scientists kept the Chinese material in storage until 1985, by which time the Pakistanis had made a few bombs with their own uranium. Khan said he got Zia's approval to ask the Chinese whether they wanted their high-enriched uranium back. After a few days, they responded "that the HEU loaned earlier was now to be considered as a gift . . . in gratitude" for Pakistani help, Khan said.
He said the laboratory promptly fabricated hemispheres for two weapons and added them to Pakistan's arsenal. Khan's view was that none of this violated the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty, because neither nation had signed it at the time and neither had sought to use its capability "against any country in particular." He also wrote that subsequent international protests reeked of hypocrisy because of foreign assistance to nuclear weapons programs in Britain, Israel and South Africa.
U.S. unaware of progress
The United States was suspicious of Pakistani-Chinese collaboration through this period. Officials knew that China treasured its relationship with Pakistan because both worried about India; they also knew that China viewed Western nuclear policies as discriminatory and that some Chinese politicians had favored the spread of nuclear arms as a path to stability.
But U.S. officials were ignorant about key elements of the cooperation as it unfolded, according to current and former officials and classified documents.
China is "not in favor of a Pakistani nuclear explosive program, and I don't think they are doing anything to help it," a top State Department official reported in a secret briefing in 1979, three years after the Bhutto-Mao deal was struck. A secret State Department report in 1983 said Washington was aware that Pakistan had requested China's help, but "we do not know what the present status of the cooperation is," according to a declassified copy.
Meanwhile, Chinese Premier Zhao Ziyang promised at a White House dinner in January 1984: "We do not engage in nuclear proliferation ourselves, nor do we help other countries develop nuclear weapons." A nearly identical statement was made by China in a major summary of its nonproliferation policies in 2003 and on many occasions in between.
Fred McGoldrick, a senior State Department nonproliferation official in the Reagan and Clinton administrations, recalls that the United States learned in the 1980s about the Chinese bomb-design and uranium transfers. "We did confront them, and they denied it," he said. Since then, the connection has been confirmed by particles on nuclear-related materials from Pakistan, many of which have characteristic Chinese bomb program "signatures," other officials say.
Hans M. Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, said that except for the instance described by Khan, "we are not aware of cases where a nuclear weapon state has transferred HEU to a non-nuclear country for military use." McGoldrick also said he is aware of "nothing like it" in the history of nuclear weapons proliferation. But he said nothing has ever been said publicly because "this is diplomacy; you don't do that sort of thing . . . if you want them to change their behavior."
A nuclear power's act of proliferation Accounts by controversial scientist assert China gave Pakistan enough enriched uranium in '82 to make 2 bombs
By R. Jeffrey Smith and Joby Warrick Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, November 13, 2009
Warrick reported from Islamabad. Staff researcher Julie Tate in Washington and Beijing bureau assistant Wang Juan contributed to this report.
The Obama Administration seems to be on the brink of announcing a “new strategy” for Afghanistan. More than two dozen earlier review have actually ended up in more of the same with nothing changed from the Bush Administration’s “shock and awe”. Many generals, many years, two presidents, and hundreds of body bags laterthe Obama policy is not significantly different than the policy of President George Bush.
At Wednesday’s strategy session, Mr Obama was shown four options: to send relatively few troops to Afghanistan — between 10,000 and 15,000 — and another three scenarios, with troop levels set at about 20,000, 30,000 and 40,000. The President questioned Mr Eikenberry, on a video link from Kabul, about his concerns. His greatest worry, which was reflected in the questions he put, was his desire to know what the exit strategy was. He wanted to know when America and its allies would be able to hand over responsibility to the Afghan Government — or, as one official said, “where the off-ramps for the military are”.
Apparently the White House has four options in front of him which represent an escalating number of additional troops to Afghanistan:
Send 10,000 additional US troops to Kabul and continue the counterinsurgency operation in Afghanistan while training 150,000 additional Afghan troops.
Send 20,000 additional US troops to Kabul and continue the counterinsurgency operation in Afghanistan while training 150,000 additional Afghan troops.
Send 30,000 additional US troops to Kabul and continue the counterinsurgency operation in Afghanistan while training 150,000 additional Afghan troops.
Send 40,000 additional US troops to Kabul and continue the counterinsurgency operation in Afghanistan while training 150,000 additional Afghan troops.
President Barack Obama during joint news conference with Japanese PM Yukio Hatoyama, not pictured, in Tokyo, 13 Nov 2009
U.S. President Barack Obama says a decision on a revised Afghanistan strategy will come soon, and he vows the United States military commitment there will not be open-ended. Mr. Obama talked about the strategy review process in Tokyo where he met with Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama. Questions about the Afghanistan review followed the president across the Pacific.
At a news conference with Prime Minister Hatoyama, he was asked what more information he might conceivably need before making a decision. "I don't think this is a matter of some datum of information that I'm waiting on," he said. "It's a matter of making certain that when I send young men and women into war, and I devote billions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer money, that it's making us safer."
His military and civilian advisors have provided the president with a range of options, and there have been a number of lengthy closed-door meetings at the White House. Mr. Obama is said to be considering sending additional troops to Afghanistan, with reports putting the number at somewhere between 10,000 and 40,000.
He told reporters in Tokyo that he will make an announcement soon. And he took on critics who complain the decision making process has been far too slow. "They tend not to be folks who I think are directly involved in what's happening in Afghanistan," he said. "Those who are recognize the gravity of the situation and recognize the importance of us getting this right."
Mr. Obama said once the decision is made he will make sure the American public fully understands the new war strategy and all it entails. He said in so doing, he will send a message to the Afghan people as well.
"It will also I think send a clear message that our goal here ultimately has to be for the Afghan people to be able to be in a position to provide their own security, and that the United States cannot be engaged in an open-ended commitment," he said.
The president said he will continue to encourage other countries to contribute to the cause. Japan recently announced it will no longer refuel ships involved in the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan. Instead, the new Hatoyama government said it would provide the Afghan people with $5 billion in civilian aid over five years. Obama says Afghan Decision to Come Soon, By Paula Wolfson, Tokyo, 13 November 2009
The Times says that the most powerful voice in President Obama’s ear right now is the Afghan Ambassador and former General who clearly stands against the surge.
Two leaked classified cables from the US Ambassador in Kabul voicing grave concern about sending more American troops to Afghanistan have exposed open conflict inside President Obama’s national security team over his war strategy.
The contents of the cables, passed to The Washington Post and The New York Times yesterday by three officials, also highlighted growing uncertainty inside the White House about how to prosecute the war, amid deep concerns over the corruption of Hamid Karzai’s Government.
The cables put the Ambassador, Karl Eikenberry — a retired general who in 2007 was the top military commander in Afghanistan — starkly at odds with the current ground commander, General Stanley McChrystal, who has requested an increase of at least 40,000 troops.
In the memos, General Eikenberry said that he had deep reservations about sending in more US troops because he was concerned by the unreliability and corrupt nature of Mr Karzai’s Government. It is a problem that has dogged Mr Obama’s deliberations and undermined the urgent demand by General McChrystal for more troops. The cables appear to have been shown to the media in an orchestrated effort by some members of Mr Obama’s war Cabinet to increase pressure on Mr Karzai to revamp his corruption-riddled Government.
They lay bare, however, the deepening rifts within the White House. “I have been appalled by the amount of leaking that has been going on,” Robert Gates, the Defence Secretary, said.
He was referring to the almost daily anonymous briefings given by American officials about how many troops Mr Obama is considering sending to Afghanistan; a numbers game that has led to wildly fluctuating press reports.
Hours before the publication of the cables — which were sent by General Eikenberry in the past week to an unspecified government office in Washington — Mr Obama rejected all four options that he and his national security team had debated in his eighth strategy review meeting. After weeks of deliberation, he essentially sent his advisers back to the drawing board to come up with more, or improved, options.
After the White House strategy session on Wednesday, aides to Mr Obama released a statement that appeared to reflect General Eikenberry’s concerns. “The President believes that we need to make clear to the Afghan Government that our commitment is not open-ended,” the statement said. “After years of substantial investments by the American people, governance in Afghanistan must improve in a reasonable period of time.”
General Eikenberry’s memos raise questions about how US policy can be implemented in Afghanistan, given his now very public disagreement with General McChrystal on war strategy. General McChrystal has said that without the additional troops he was requesting, the mission in Afghanistan would “likely result in failure”. The Ambassador also appears to be at odds with Mr Gates, Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, and Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who have in recent days reportedly backed a proposal to send about 30,000 more troops.
At Wednesday’s strategy session, Mr Obama was shown four options: to send relatively few troops to Afghanistan — between 10,000 and 15,000 — and another three scenarios, with troop levels set at about 20,000, 30,000 and 40,000. The President questioned Mr Eikenberry, on a video link from Kabul, about his concerns. His greatest worry, which was reflected in the questions he put, was his desire to know what the exit strategy was. He wanted to know when America and its allies would be able to hand over responsibility to the Afghan Government — or, as one official said, “where the off-ramps for the military are”.
Mr Gates said that the Obama Administration was trying to balance the need to show a commitment to Afghanistan at the same time as conveying to the Kabul Government that the American presence was not indefinite. Mr Obama’s slow deliberations are, in part, intended to demonstrate that he is not being railroaded by his ground commander and will not send more troops without thinking through the long-term implications for a surge.
The delay has been sharply criticised by Republicans, however. John McCain, his opponent in last year’s presidential election, expressed anger last week about Mr Obama’s perceived indecision. Dick Cheney, the former Vice-President, has accused Mr Obama of “dithering”.
John Bolton, the former US Ambassador to the UN and a foreign policy hardliner, said: “This is like a slowmotion train wreck, watching this decision-making process, and it really is having a debilitating effect on troop morale in Afghanistan.”(The Times)
Strumenti 
I think it is time that Mumbai was made a Union Territory. Industrially and commercially, it is the hub of India’s financial activity. Delhi is a Union Territory because it is the centre of the country’s political activity. Why should Mumbai, which is India’s financial capital, have a different status? 
If nothing else, the contribution by ‘outsiders’ should shut up the Shiv Sena and its ilk, the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena, that they are a burden on Mumbai or that the jobs in the state should be given to Maharashtrians alone. This pernicious thesis, the son-of-the-soil articulation, was advanced by many states, including Maharashtra, before the Fazl Ali States Reorganisation Commission in 1955. It firmly rejected the various claims and held: “It is the Union of India that is the basis of our nationality.” In its report, the Commission said that “it (Bombay) has acquired its present commanding position by the joint endeavour of the different language groups”. 
Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru took a fancy to the idea of keeping Bombay apart. He pushed it when Maharashtra and Gujarat were agitating against the commission’s recommendation to integrate them into one bilingual state. Nehru presented before the cabinet a proposal to have three units: Maharashtra, Gujarat and the city of Bombay. The then finance minister, C.D. Deshmukh, agreed to the formula in the cabinet. But he changed his stand following the furore in Maharashtra and submitted his resignation. Bombay was made part of Maharashtra. 
After the formation of states, it was understood that the regional language could be learnt after the recruitment. But now its knowledge has been made compulsory before a person is eligible for the job. This is making state services an exclusive preserve of the majority language group of the state. 
In the late 1950s, the southern states felt that they were not getting their share. There were agitations and public rallies. Nehru was quick to convenethe National Integration Conference to discuss the various grievances. The conference appointed many committees to give their recommendations on how to bring about national integration. 
Click Image to Enlarge 
