NEW YORK: Pakistani neuroscientist Aafia Siddiqui took the stand on Thursday afternoon to testify in a court where she is facing the charge of trying to kill American servicemen while in custody at Ghazni (Afghanistan).

While denying the attempted murder charge, Dr Aafia told the court that she was concerned she was going to be transferred to a ‘secret’ prison by the Americans and was trying to slip out of the room when she was shot.
“I’m telling you what I know,” she said in response to a question by Assistant US Attorney Jenna M. Dabbs.
“I walked towards the curtain. I was shot and I was shot again. I fainted.” Much to the surprise of her defence team, Dr Aafia turned to be a ‘credible witness’.

She was allowed to take the stand after Judge Richard Berman issued her caveats making her aware of the pitfalls and the dangers of such a move. Her defence team was literally scared that she could turn out to be her own worst enemy given her past record of outbursts.
She had been thrown out of the court several times after being admonished by the judge not to speak out of turn.

But on Thursday she surprised them all and remained calm and composed.Dr Aafia again denied picking up an M4 rifle and taking a shot at American soldiers and instead maintained that she was scared and wanted to run away as she heard conversations from behind the curtain during her incarceration at Ghazni.
She said as she peeked out of the curtain she was shot and injured. She also accused the FBI agents who questioned her time and again of threatening to hurt her children in order to scare her.
At one point she became so chatty that she was asked by the judge to just answer the question instead of elaborating them.

She also denied prosectuion’s claim that she was trained in rifle shooting, saying: “I took physical training but not to shoot a rifle.”

She said she was shot two or three times by one person in the room and then shot by someone else. She also said she did not believe any US soldier in the room would be irresponsible enough to leave his weapon lying around.
A group of FBI agents and US soldiers had travelled to Ghazni to interview Dr Aafia after she was allegedly found with materials that included hand-written notes referring to a “mass casualty attack” in the US and listed several landmark locations, including the Empire State Building and the Brooklyn Bridge, prosecutors have said.

Tags: aafia

NEW YORK: Pakistani neuroscientist Aafia Siddiqui took the stand on Thursday afternoon to testify in a court where she is facing the charge of trying to kill American servicemen while in custody at Ghazni (Afghanistan).

While denying the attempted murder charge, Dr Aafia told the court that she was concerned she was going to be transferred to a ‘secret’ prison by the Americans and was trying to slip out of the room when she was shot.
“I’m telling you what I know,” she said in response to a question by Assistant US Attorney Jenna M. Dabbs.
“I walked towards the curtain. I was shot and I was shot again. I fainted.” Much to the surprise of her defence team, Dr Aafia turned to be a ‘credible witness’.

She was allowed to take the stand after Judge Richard Berman issued her caveats making her aware of the pitfalls and the dangers of such a move. Her defence team was literally scared that she could turn out to be her own worst enemy given her past record of outbursts.
She had been thrown out of the court several times after being admonished by the judge not to speak out of turn.

But on Thursday she surprised them all and remained calm and composed.Dr Aafia again denied picking up an M4 rifle and taking a shot at American soldiers and instead maintained that she was scared and wanted to run away as she heard conversations from behind the curtain during her incarceration at Ghazni.
She said as she peeked out of the curtain she was shot and injured. She also accused the FBI agents who questioned her time and again of threatening to hurt her children in order to scare her.
At one point she became so chatty that she was asked by the judge to just answer the question instead of elaborating them.

She also denied prosectuion’s claim that she was trained in rifle shooting, saying: “I took physical training but not to shoot a rifle.”

She said she was shot two or three times by one person in the room and then shot by someone else. She also said she did not believe any US soldier in the room would be irresponsible enough to leave his weapon lying around.
A group of FBI agents and US soldiers had travelled to Ghazni to interview Dr Aafia after she was allegedly found with materials that included hand-written notes referring to a “mass casualty attack” in the US and listed several landmark locations, including the Empire State Building and the Brooklyn Bridge, prosecutors have said.

Tags: aafia

Fifty-two years ago, on Jan. 30, 1948, Mohandas Gandhi was shot dead by Nathuram Godse, a Hindu extremist.  Godse and his friend Narayan Apte were hanged. His brother Gopal and two others were sentenced to life imprisonment for their part in the conspiracy.

Gopal Godse remained in jail for 18 years and now, at 80, lives with his wife in a small apartment in Pune. He is still proud of his role in the murder. Although Godse is largely ignored in India and rarely talks to journalists, he agreed to speak with TIME Delhi correspondent Meenakshi Ganguly.

TIME: What happened in January 1948?
Godse: On Jan. 20, Madanlal Pahwa exploded a bomb at Gandhi’s prayer meeting in Delhi. It was 50 m away from Gandhi. [The other conspirators] all ran away from the place. Madanlal was caught there. Then there was a tension in our minds that we had to finish the task before the police caught us. Then Nathuram [Gopal's brother] took it on himself to do the thing. We only wanted destiny to help us — meaning we should not be caught on the spot before he acted.

TIME: Why did you want to kill Gandhi?
Godse: Gandhi was a hypocrite. Even after the massacre of the Hindus by the Muslims, he was happy. The more the massacres of the Hindus, the taller his flag of secularism.

TIME: Did you ever see Gandhi?
Godse: Yes.

TIME: Did you attend his meetings?
Godse: Yes.

TIME: Can you explain how he created his mass following?
Godse: The credit goes to him for maneuvering the media. He captured the press. That was essential. How Gandhi walked, when he smiled, how he waved — all these minor details that the people did not require were imposed upon them to create an atmosphere around Gandhi. And the more ignorant the masses, the more popular was Gandhi. So they always tried to keep the masses ignorant.

TIME: But surely it takes more than good publicity to create a Gandhi?
Godse: There is another thing. Generally in the Indian masses, people are attracted toward saintism. Gandhi was shrewd to use his saintdom for politics. After his death the government used him. The government knew that he was an enemy of Hindus, but they wanted to show that he was a staunch Hindu. So the first act they did was to put "Hey Ram" into Gandhi’s dead mouth.

TIME: You mean that he did not say "Hey Ram" as he died?
Godse: No, he did not say it. You see, it was an automatic pistol. It had a magazine for nine bullets but there were actually seven at that time. And once you pull the trigger, within a second, all the seven bullets had passed. When these bullets pass through crucial points like the heart, consciousness is finished. You have no strength.

When Nathuram saw Gandhi was coming, he took out the pistol and folded his hands with the pistol inside it. There was one girl very close to Gandhi. He feared that he would hurt the girl. So he went forward and with his left hand pushed her aside and shot. It happened within one second. You see, there was a film and some Kingsley fellow had acted as Gandhi. Someone asked me whether Gandhi said, "Hey Ram." I said Kingsley did say it. But Gandhi did not. Because that was not a drama.

TIME: Many people think Gandhi deserved to be nominated TIME’s Person of the Century. [He was one of two runners-up, after Albert Einstein.]
Godse: I name him the most cruel person for Hindus in India. The most cruel person! That is how I term him.

TIME: Is there anything that you admire about Gandhi?
Godse: Firstly, the mass awakening that Gandhi did. In our school days Gandhi was our idol. Secondly, he removed the fear of prison. He said it is different to go into prison for a theft and different to go in for satyagraha (civil disobedience). As youngsters, we had our enthusiasm, but we needed some channel. We took Gandhi to be our channel. We don’t repent for that.

TIME: Did you not admire his principles of non-violence?
Godse: Non-violence is not a principle at all. He did not follow it. In politics you cannot follow non-violence. You cannot follow honesty. Every moment, you have to give a lie. Every moment you have to take a bullet in hand and kill someone. Why was he proved to be a hypocrite? Because he was in politics with his so-called principles. Is his non-violence followed anywhere? Not in the least. Nowhere.

TIME: What was the most difficult thing about killing Gandhi?
Godse: The greatest hurdle before us was not that of giving up our lives or going to the gallows. It was that we would be condemned both by the government and by the public. Because the public had been kept in the dark about what harm Gandhi had done to the nation. How he had fooled them!

TIME: Did the people condemn you?
Godse: Yes. People in general did. Because they had been kept ignorant.

TIME (FEBRUARY 14, 2000 VOL. 155 NO. 6)

W E B – O N L Y   I N T E R V I E W
"His Principle of Peace Was Bogus"
Gopal Godse, co-conspirator in Gandhi’s assassination and brother of the assassin, looks back in anger–and without regret

The snapshot of this interview has been taken from the TIME Magazine’s Website

The Rediff Interview/ Gopal Godse

‘Gandhi used to systematically fool people. So we killed him’

The lights go off as you reach the dilapidated building in Santa Cruz, in Bombay’s western suburbs. With great difficulty you navigate the stairs and knock on a first-floor door.

"What do you want," asks the lady who opened the door.

You tell her you have come to meet Gopal Godse.

"Yes, I’m here," a voice comes from a corner of the dark room. The lady brings a lighted candle and you see the 76-year-old man who underwent 18 years imprisonment for conspiring in Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination.

"I’m sorry the lights are off," Nathuram Godse’s brother says, "You know, this is India and even after 50 years of Independence we have not improved.

"Since Independence our people are accustomed to forget history. Today no one is bothered about the Partition. And no one wants to reunite India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

"Gandhi systematically fooled the people by saying, ‘I’ll accept the Partition of the country over my dead body.’ But still he partitioned India. So we killed him…"

Godse, in an exclusive interview with Firdaus Syed Ashraf:

Do you ever regret Mahatma Gandhi’s killing?

No, never. Gandhi used to claim the Partition would be over his dead body. So after Partition when he didn’t die, we killed him. Usually an assassination of a leader is either for personal benefit or to acquire power. We killed Gandhi because he was harmful to India. And it was a selfless act. No one paid us a single penny for it. Our love for the motherland made us do it. We are not ashamed of it. Gandhi should have been honest to admit that his life was a failure.

You see, right from Pakistan and Bangladesh every Muslim is a converted Hindu. Gandhi’s appeasement attitude (towards the Muslims) went far too much. That was why we killed him. Two hundred and fifty thousand Hindus were killed in Noakhali in October 1946. Hindu women were forced to remove their sindhoor and do Muslim rituals. And Gandhi said, ‘Hindus must bow their heads if Muslims want to kill them. We should follow the principle of ahimsa (non-violence).’ How can any sensible person tolerate this? Our action was not for a handful of people — it was for all the refugees who came from Pakistan.

So, till this day, I have never regreted being one of the conspirators in Gandhi’s assassination. In fact, many of Nathuram’s friends told me after my release, ‘Nathuram ni gadhav pana kela, tyani majha chance ghalavla‘ (Nathuram did you an injustice. He made you miss your chance to kill Gandhi).

Did your family undergo any social pressure after the assassination?

Yes, very much. No one used to be ready to marry girls from my family. So we decided that the first thing we should put across to the bridegroom was that we are related to Nathuram Godse. It is only now that people appreciate our honesty. Now they are ready for marriage (into my family).

If the Muslim League could influence the Muslims in 1947, why was it that the Hindu Mahasabha could not influence Hindus?

(That was) because I don’t have any leadership quality. My talent is to write. And I have convinced my readers with my writing.

Unfortunately, the so-called secular Hindu leaders from the Congress have been ruling the masses since 1885. And they have ruled the country for another 50 years. It is only now that Hindus have become conscious (about the Congress). They have thrown the party out from Maharashtra and all over India.

You cannot gauge a nation in merely five decades. It took 500 years for the Christians to drive away Muslims from Europe. Muslims ruled right up to Spain and Portugal. I don’t know how many years it will take for Hindus to rule the entire Bharat. It may be a decade, or it may be a century.

Did you ever contest elections?

Yes, I contested from Ranchi in Bihar. People asked me why I was contesting there. I said my slogan is ‘Ab ke bar Ranchi se agli bar Karachi se‘. (This election I will contest from Ranchi and the next from Karachi). I was able to secure only 7,000 votes because I did not have any mass support.

According to Nathuram the Sindhu was the only river which was pure as Gandhi’s ashes were not immersed there’

What is the national mainstream?

I can give you an example: There was some inauguration of a dam in Kerala. A Muslim minister was asked to light the lamp. He refused, saying his religion does not permit him to do that! That’s hypocrisy. Whenever you find benefits you keep your Islam away. And when you are asked to light a lamp you say it’s against your religion! That’s why I say Muslims in a mob are not in the mainstream.

Veer Savarkar once said, "If a Vithal is worshipped by a Harijan and you say that he is polluted, then he is no Vithal at all."

How can there be a mainstream in India when there are so many castes? A Maharashtrian has a different caste and culture from that of his counterpart in West Bengal.

Britishers created this caste system. Even in Maharashtra they wanted to create a split between the brahmins and the others. Laloo Prasad Yadav and Mulayam Singh Yadav are from the same caste. But still they quarrel. Why? Because they are hungry for power. What has tied them and every Indian together is the common culture. That is what we call Hindutva. For example, a marriage between a Mahar in Maharashtra and a brahmin in West Bengal. They come from the same mantras. That is what we call culture and Hindutva.

The most essential thing is why we are together. Because of language? No. Because of our common culture. And that is why from north to south people are going to attend the Amarnath Yatra. Once you forget your culture, the mere existence of the geographical boundary which is termed India will be of no use.

What were your experiences in jail?

When we took the step, we were sure of the consequences. We took it because we loved our nation. Bhagat Singh did not want to liberate his ancestral land. He wanted to liberate Lahore, Pune and the entire nation. So he sacrificed his life. Revolution is integrated with its leader. A man who sacrifices his life is not bothered about petty things. We knew Gandhi’s leadership was not good for the nation. Someone had to jump in the fire. So we did it.

Veer Savarkar was made to do the work which bullocks did in an oil mill. And he did it. Why? Because he was dedicated to the nation. All revolutionaries have to make personal sacrifice. Luckily for us, all the jailers knew we were simple men. They knew our cause. So they never troubled us. And I never violated the prison rules. I studied about life imprisonment and wrote about it.

Can you tell me about your last meeting with Nathuram Godse?

I met him on November 13, 1948 in Ambala jail. It was the day before his execution and there were 20 others with me. Both he and Narayan Apte were jolly.

Nathuram told us that his ashes must not be immersed in any river in India — it must be scattered only in the Sindhu in Pakistan. His explanation was that Gandhi’s ashes have been immersed in all the rivers of the world — even in the Nile, Volga and Thames. But the Pakistan government refused to immerse his ashes in the Sindhu, saying they didn’t want to pollute it with the ashes of a kafir. According to Nathuram the Sindhu was the only river which was pure as Gandhi’s ashes were not immersed there.

How do you see India’s future?

(Laughs) You make me the prime minister and half the problem of this country will be solved. But I think we will improve only if our leaders adopt a selfless attitude. Take for example the education policy. We must set up a target: in 15 years we will educate so many people. And only those people who can read and write will be allowed to vote. In such an eventuality, politicians will get busy educating the masses in order to get votes.

Another problem is the large number of candidates. And many of them are uneducated. We must make some norms to prevent this. Only then we will improve. To date, nobody has any thought of the nation. Otherwise you would never have heard of recovering more than Rs 30 million from a politician’s flat. They don’t have any integration with the nation. They are only integrated with their family and sons-in-law.

What is your opinion about secularism in India?

All these 50 years we practised a mockery of secularism. The magistrate has to ask about the religion of a person before giving a judgment. If a man is a Hindu he gets one kind of justice and if he is a Muslim he gets another. Can you call this secularism? This is what is happening in our country. Even in the Property Act you have different rules for Muslims.

What about poverty in India?

Poverty has increased because resources have not increased. On one side you want to increase the life of a person. On the other, you don’t want to increase the resources. If you have noticed, during the advertisement of family planning on television you never see a Muslim woman saying ‘Hum do Hamare do‘ (We are two, ours two). And these secularists say that family planning is applicable to all of us! I don’t understand why former prime minister Narasimha Rao says ‘If there is a Common Civil Code riots will start all over the country’.

Which do you prefer — the BJP or Shiv Sena?

The Shiv Sena. The BJP is more hesitant to stand by Hinduism. The Shiv Sena supports the killing of Gandhi. People accept them as a Hindu party. When I was honoured, the BJP kept away from it. In Maharashtra the Sena has more respect than the BJP.

Mumbai: The reason why Raj Thackeray admires both Adolf Hitler and Mahatma Gandhi is "the way they shook up societies and created uproar," according to the official website of MNS.

However, on Monday, it was the admiration for the Fuehrer which was on display in the Maharashtra Assembly as MNS MLAs bashed up another Legislator in the House. The MNS website has an interesting conversation with the enfant terrible of Maharashtra politics. Excerpts:

"Question: You say you admire Gandhi, who preached non-violence. Then why do your followers heed to violence? The answer: You need to communicate with your opponent in a language they understand, a language they can comprehend."

Beating up SP MLA Abu Asim Azmi for not taking oath in Marathi as he could only understand the language of violence was the message given by Raj and his men, who were mute spectators when some other MLAs did not take oath in the language and instead opted for English.

Hitler’s stormtroopers persecuted Jews and people who opposed the Fuehrer. Raj and Azmi have been at loggerheads since the MNS chief launched his anti-north Indian stir.

Raj told PTI in 2005, "When it comes to organisational skills, there are few who can rival Hitler. Leave aside his negative aspects like the barbaric annihilation of millions of Jews. There are several other things about Hitler, which any leader would. http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report_raj-thackeray-admires-hitler-mahatma-gandhi-mns-website_1310381

Raj Thackeray admires Hitler, Mahatma Gandhi: MNS website

Many Pakistani Americans do not know the negative connotations of the “P” word. I was astonished to see many youngsters in New York proudly calling themselves Paki—during the Pakistan Day Parade. The 2nd and third generation Pakistanis in America who have not lived in Britain see no harm in suing the short form of Pakistani. While the word equates to the “N” word in England—it has no significance in the USA. Stupid Bigoted Bharatis (aka Indians) don’t know that the “P” word refers to all South Asians including the Indians. Many Bharatis on the internet use the word in front of unsuspecting Pakistanis—and think that they have gotten away with murder. In fact when one minority denigrates another, all minorities suffer.  While Indians are facing severe problems in Australia, they continue to use the “P” word to denigrate Pakistanis. As one Australian said same sh**, different bucket. For the racist bigot, there is no difference between on brown man or another.

Earlier this year, a homemade video of Prince Harry, the impish grandson of the British Queen whose colourful exploits have earned him tabloid darling status, was leaked to a delighted UK press. Training to be a soldier in Her Majesty’s Army, Prince Harry is shown referring to a British Pakistani Muslim colleague as ‘our little Paki friend,’ amongst other questionable remarks. Headlines exploded, the Pakistani community went on the offensive, and race relations experts came out of the woodwork in force to attack the prince.

Prince Harry unreservedly apologised for his comments, and Clarence House, the prince’s representatives, issued a statement explaining that he had used the term without malice. Still, columnists across the political spectrum criticised the prince and even the Daily Mail, the usually contrary voice of conservative Middle England, said the prince ‘had shown incredible crassness… and he can expect no more chances.’

Within the British blogosphere and on newspaper website comment sections, the row blazed on for weeks. Some commentators dismissed the criticism against the prince, claiming it was symptomatic of the prevailing political correctness in society. Others downplayed the prince’s comments and simply equated ‘Paki’ with other jocular terms denoting British regional identities, such as ‘Scot’ (someone from Scotland) or ‘Geordie’ (someone from Newcastle). Former army officers boldly said Prince Harry was just following the grand military tradition of endowing his colleagues with nicknames so that his colleague, Lieutenant Ahmad Khan, was simply ‘Paki,’ just as Sir Henry Havelock, who recaptured Kanpur during the Indian rebellion in 1857 was ‘Gravedigger’ and Philip Chetwode, the Commander in Chief in India in the 1930s, was nicknamed ‘The Bart.’

What the episode outlined – apart from Prince Harry having inherited the gaffe-prone gene of the Windsor dynasty (grandfather Prince Phillip to British students in China during a state visit in 1986: ‘If you stay here for much longer, you’ll go slitty eyed.’) – was that the contention surrounding the word ‘Paki’ was very much alive. Its connotations, context, and usage remain unclear even to desis themselves. The question is, why does the word continue to cause such offense?

For the Pakistani ensconced back home or visiting the UK, the word seems no more than a jovial contraction. Of course, it’s more than that. The word ‘Paki’ is loaded with the UK’s precarious and somewhat violent record of race relations in the late 1960s and 1970s, when immigration from the Indian subcontinent reached its apogee.
The first sensationalist and press-endorsed flogging of Pakistanis came in the early 1960s, during a reported smallpox outbreak in Bradford, where many Pakistanis had settled. A few unvaccinated Pakistanis did fall ill, but, according to Dr. Derrick Tovey, a practicing physician at the time, the press exaggerated the situation. Reportage was ‘often irresponsible,’ with headlines such as ‘City in Fear’ or ‘Keep Out Pakistanis.’ The public response reasserted essentialist – though disproved – colonial ideas about the ‘non-white’ embedded in the national psyche by Victorian science during the height of the British Empire.

Resistance to South Asian immigration materialised more coherently in the 1970s with the rise of nationalist parties and militant outfits like the British National Party and the National Front. These groups pamphleteered in white communities where immigrants had settled, urging Britons to support policies on repatriation and even accusing South Asian communities of stealing jobs and state-funded housing.

While the 1965 Race Relations Act made racial discrimination illegal in public on ‘grounds of colour, race, or ethnic or national origins,’ the Conservative MP Enoch Powell compared such legislation to ‘throwing a match on to gunpowder.’ He actively encouraged the repatriation of settled immigrants, even if they were UK citizens, inflaming national sentiment even further.

Despite race legislation supporting immigrants, many Pakistanis in the UK at the time, will recall the term ‘Paki-bashing,’ used to describe the sordid pastime of working-class white youths, or ‘skinheads,’ who would attack unsuspecting individuals from South Asian communities.

These racial tensions came to a head in 1979, when a teacher died of head injuries during a confrontation with the police in a protest by thousands of anti-racist campaigners. The protestors had assembled against a National Front meeting, which controversially took place in a town hall in Southall, a suburb in south-west London with one of the UK’s largest Asian communities.

Over the years, though, British Asians have moved into the mainstream. They are well represented in professional fields and in the media, and no doubt pleased by a declaration in 2001 by Robin Cook, the erstwhile Foreign Secretary under Tony Blair, that chicken tikka masala is the national dish of the UK. Such developments make it apparent that desis are here to stay and indeed add significant cultural and material value to British society.

Still, the usage of the word ‘Paki’ is as offensive as ever. Last year, on a rather staid UK reality show, Strictly Come Ballroom, where couples contest in ballroom dancing, slick-haired contestant Anton du Beke was accused of racism for dropping the P word. He said that his fellow dance partner, the actress Laila Rouass, who is herself of Indian and Moroccan extraction, ‘looked like a Paki.’ Heavily criticised by the press, Du Beke’s comments were shocking and reprehensible in twenty-first century multicultural Britain. And in July last year, white supremacist Neil Lewington was convicted of preparing for acts of terrorism, and was widely quoted as saying, ‘the only good Paki is a dead Paki.’

But we shouldn’t forget that the use of ‘Paki’ was once fair game on mainstream British television in the 1970s and early 1980s. Take a 1981 episode of Only Fools and Horses, which some critics say was among the best UK television comedies shows ever made. In the offending episode, a white, working class, and slightly befuddled character Uncle Albert says, ‘The Paki shop won’t let us have nothing on tick (credit)! Says it’s part of his culture!’ His nephew Rodney replies, ‘Don’t think it’s got anything to do with the 46 quid we already owe ‘em, do you?’

Some may argue that Rodney’s response illustrated the burgeoning resistance to racist syntax prevalent in the 1980s by demystifying Uncle Albert’s flawed assumptions of ‘Paki’ culture. Yet in a period of difficult race relations, in which the use of Paki was commonplace, it is hard to discern an altruistic purpose in the scriptwriter’s decision to use the word ‘Paki,’ whether comically or not.

It’s obvious to say that ‘Paki’ is an offensive, catch-all racist term that seeks to attack, offend, and alienate those of South Asian extraction in the UK. Yet in a post-9/11 – or post-7/7 world with regards to the UK – the term is beginning to connote a new prejudice in which Islamophobia takes centre-stage.

In November 2009, The Guardian reported the launch of a police investigation into a series of attacks on Muslim students at City University in London. According to the Federation of Student Islamic Societies, the gang responsible for the attacks comprised about 30 white and black youths and shouted ‘get those Muslims’ and ‘Pakis.’ Meanwhile, a BBC Panorama documentary aired in November followed two South Asian reporters who had gone undercover being abused in terms such as ‘Paki’ and ‘Taliban’ by the residents of an estate in Bristol.

It is clear that ‘Paki’ in these instances is interchangeable with derogatory anti-Muslim jibes and encompasses religious affiliation as well as ethnic origin. This will be increasingly true in a society facing down Islamist terrorism and inundated with examples of fanatic, semtex-clad British Pakistanis. Shakespeare asked, ‘What’s in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet.’  Change a few things around and you have the Bard hitting it on the nail.

Of course, this isn’t to say its all doom and gloom. Attempts to reclaim and appropriate ‘Paki’ as a positive, even fashionable term have gained ground amongst South Asian youths in the UK, in the same way ‘nigger’ was reclaimed by black hip hop artists and filmmakers in the US. At cricket matches featuring Pakistan, one can regularly see banners by Pakistani youths proclaiming ‘Paki-Power.’ Indeed, ‘Paki’ now encompasses a range of meanings, though that doesn’t lessen the offense the word can still cause

That said, there are few examples within the cultural output of British Asians to suggest a consensus has been reached as to what Paki could mean. In 2005, British Asian artist Aki Nawaz, of the band Fun-da-Mental, agreed to be interviewed for a BBC documentary titled British, Paki and Proud. Once the film was completed, he said, ‘I’m disappointed with the title. I was told [about it] last week. If I had known the title in advance I would have said, ‘I will not do it under that title.’ The term being endorsed I have a real problem with, it is absolutely unacceptable.’

When it comes down to it, the legitimate use of Paki really depends on who says it or not. It may be acceptable for one South Asian to call another a ‘Paki.’ But change the colour of the speaker and you have racism, it seems. The UK has arrived at the point where there is a sufficient understanding of how ‘Paki’ could be offensive and few are oblivious enough to use the term without an awareness of the ensuing impact.

It’s also worth noting that the term ‘Paki’ is part of a mix of more subtle and sinister forms of racial prejudice that are prevalent in the UK today. Take the race scandal in which Jade Goody, the late contestant on British reality show Big Brother, referred to Bollywood actress Shilpa Shetty as ‘Shilpa Poppadom.’ Though not outwardly racist, the culinary reference (a popular appetizer for the British at curry houses) was intended to highlight Shetty’s ethnic origin and, in the malicious context of Goody’s bullying campaign, was no doubt racist.

Of course, as keen as some may be to highlight racist attitudes in the West, our native shores are hardly unfamiliar with prejudice that peppers everyday behaviour and language. They say that charity begins at home and we should look to the mirror for how we view the world. It’s a two-way road. The P Word By Khuroum Ali Bukhari Sunday, 17 Jan, 2010

When ERRA was created by President Pervez Musharraf, tall claims were made about developing indigenous expertise for disasters. Claims were also made that ERRA would help other nations in distress. There have been several disasters in countries—in China, Turkey, Iran and now in Haiti—and ERRA is absent.

ERRA should send Sniffing dogs, and a band of men and women who can help the people of Haiti. Where is the OIC—they should be funding a disaster relief effort anywhere and everywhere. Edhi is always one of the first to reach disasters—he was there in the USA during Hurricane Katrina and in Bangladesh and Lanka etc.

Whats wrong with this picture? ERRA the government agency with literally billions under its disposal is absent—and Edhi a private enterprise send volunteers and goods to disaster affected areas of the world.

Pakistan also has a huge database of volunteers—good natured students who want to help. Here is a cause—help the people of Haiti. Haiti has a sizable “Indian” population. There are many Muslims there also.

Mr. Zardari has more than $1.5 billion to his name. How about a donation to assist Haiti. Mr. Bilawal Bhutto is prancing around Oxford. How about taking up a cause and assisting human beings that need our help today

Defense Analysts and political scientists and students of international relations experts are watching the rhetoric out of Delhi with keep interests. The three capitals—are looking for small nuances to decipher what was said, when it was said and by whom

Here is the chronology of events. General Kapoor in what would be considered a highly provocative statement said that Bharat (aka India) was ready a two pronged war with Pakistan and China.

Reports on India’s revision of its defence doctrine to meet the challenges of a ‘two front war’ with Pakistan and China have of late received media focus. Pakistan has been prompt in its response, describing India’s reported move as ‘betraying hostile intent’ and reflecting a ‘hegemonic and jingoistic mindset’. D S Rajan in Rediff News

As expected there was an explosion in Pakistan. Political leaders, as well as the head of the army and major politicians and the National Assembly decried General Kapoor’s statements and called it an act of grave provocation.

If some analyst had expect an equally robust and angry response from Beijing, they were disappointed. The Chinese response to the Bharati general’s speech was stone silence.

The Chinese leadership saw through the Bharati “strategy” and looked at it for what it was—bluster. The Chinese leadership correctly weighed the Bharti actions and were prepared for it. Deng Xiao Peng had taught them well—Confucius says “keep a low profile, “don’t over react” and “build yourself up”, “avoid conflict” and project “soft power”. There is hard work of nation building to be done—empty chatter resolves nothing and produces nothing.

The Chinese response to Bharati provocation was decided upon decades ago. It does not nee to be reiterated.

Keep a cool head and maintain a low profile. Never take the lead – but aim to do something big. Deng Xiao Peng

Beijing sees Delhi’s bluster as an attempt to raise the stature of Delhi. What better way to raise the stature than to challenge an emerging superpower? One would think that Delhi is some way or form could ever compete with Beijing in anything> If Beijing had responded to General Kapoor’s juvenile delinquency, it would have reduced itself to Delhi’s level. By taking the high road and ignoring Delhi, Beijing reduced Delhi to what it was, a regional bully that can’t even compete with Pakistan.

Pakistan’s Nuclear prowess had reduced Bharati plans. Delhi hegemony hits a brick wall on its Western front. It cannot go one inch forward. The boundary has become sacrosanct, and all the huffing and puffing and paper exercises do nothing to intimidate Islamabad.

The sagacious Maleeha Lodhi, the former Pakistani Ambassador to the US and the UK is one of the most talented political scientist around. she also clearly saw through Delhi’s game and clearly identified the source of entire passages, and the origins of the vocabulary of the Delhi’s new “doctrine”. Delhi had clearly plagiarized it from the American Doctrine of war.

Even more interesting is the fact that Beijing analysts seem to have pre-empted what Delhi was trying to do, and already seem to have written about it. Here is D.S. Rajan on the subject again.

The People’s Republic of China does not appear to have come out so far with any official reaction on the subject; interesting however is that the same theme of India’s ‘two front war’, worded a bit differently as ‘two front mobile warfare’ has figured in an in-depth authoritative Chinese evaluation of India’s defence strategy, done as early as November 2009; it raises a question whether or not Beijing [ Images ] already knew about India’s reported revision of its defence strategy. This apart, it would be important to have a close look at what has been said in that analysis, for drawing meaningful conclusions. What follows is an attempt in that direction.

Titled ‘Great Changes in India’s Defence Strategy — War objective shifts to giving China importance, while treating Pakistan as lightweight’, the analysis contributed by Hao Ding, a researcher of the Chinese Academy of Military Sciences, published in the Party-affiliated Chinese language organ, China Youth Daily, on November 27, 2009, identifies following five shifts that have taken place in India’s defence strategy:

The Chinese have figured out Delhi’s strategy. Its Marketing 101. When Kia says its just as good as Samsung, it doesn’t increase its stature—but when it says it has better features than a Toyota, the strategy to make people think that its in the same league as a Toyota. Of course the strategy doesn’t work. No matter how many time GM, (with its billions of Dollars of marketing clout) said that its J cars, or K cars, or Saturns were better than Mercedes, or lately better than Toyota—the people didn’t really buy that line—and continue to buy Toyota, Nissan, and Mercedes—placing GM in bankruptcy.

Similarly Bharat’s goals are an over reach which cannot be sustained. A A Lada cannot go out and conquer the world—it lived and died in East Germany. Till Bharat gets its own house in order, and mends its fences with all her neighbors. Having an angry Nepal, a dissatisfied Bangladesh, a mad Sikkim, a seething Bhutan, a cold China, a fearful Maldives, and a belligerent Pakistan on its borders can never allow Bharat to achieve its full potential in world affairs.

‘In terms of goals, India now aims at becoming a global military power in contrast to its earlier objective to acquire a regional military power status.’ (The author’s comments say in this connection that prior to end of the cold war, India followed an expansionist and hegemonic policy in South Asia, dismembered Pakistan, annexed Sikkim kingdom and dispatched troops to Sri Lanka [ Images ] and Maldives [ Images ].

Bharat canot become a world power, unless it fixes its painful penury. Instead of purchasing a $3 Billion Aircraft Carrier, it needs to eliminate “Grabibabad” the largest slum in the world which is really a huge trash can where people live. Slumdog India can not be shining India just because a TV commercial calls it ‘shining’.

According to loft goals, Bharat wants to be a South Asia, power, a Central Asian giant and an Asia-Pacific Hercules. Loft goals for a country where 75% of the people eek out a living at less than $2 per day. Bharat wants to project itself as a Eurasian giant. Amazing goals for a country where 450 million Dalits and invisiable Untouchables don’t have the right to live. Amazingly most Indians cannot see their existence and ignore their poverty through tokenism (appointing one highly visible person in a high position).

India always was  hegemonic. Its calim that it ever had “passive defense” as its policy is belies the facts on the ground—it bullied 560 states into joing the “Indian Unio” in 1948. Nehru declared that any state that would not join the union would be considered an enemy state. It blatantly and illegally took over Hyderabad which did not want to join the Union.

It was a regional bully. Now it wants to be a global bully—without the allies or the money to get there. Bharat’s ‘and aggressive defense’ is something that the Israelis use. Its planner face a Gordian knot. Delhi seems to be in a time warp. It feels that it is in 1972. It has failed to recognize the new nuclear realities of South Asia. It cannot comprehend that mutually assured destruction means just that. It wants to somehow find a sliver of hope to strangulate Pakistan that way it has a choke hold on Sikkim. When Islamabad doesn’t get in its hold—it cries foul and tries to destabilize it—using the Mukti Bahni and Lanka model. While exporting terror does, work, Bharat is unable to achieve its objectives, because its forces cannot cross its Western border—held at bay by Nuclear powered missiles, and tactical Nuclear weapons that will destroy only a moving army.

According to the Chinese analysts, Bharat faces security threats form”the low intensity conflict with Pakistan over Kashmir [ Images ] which can trigger a large scale conflict, the risk of a nuclear confrontation among the two nations and terrorism in South Asia.”

Though accurate, this threat perception is not actually accurate. Bharat faces three major threats to its existence. According to Indian Analyst, Bharat Verma, Bharat faces the biggest threat in Kashmir, the 2nd threat in the Northeast Seven Sister States in Assam and 89 insurgencies raging in almost every Indian state—including the lethal Naxal-Maoist threat that engulfs a huge swathe of land starting from the foot of the Himalayas in the North to the deep South in Andhra Pradesh. The recent issue of Talangana shoed the entire worked the fragile nature of the Indian Union. The people want more than 50 states—in varying degrees of secessionist tendencies. Denial of right willl further exacerbate linguistic, ethnic and  religious tensions in Bharat—leading to a USSR type of implosion or a Yugoslavia type of implosion.

The Indian defence strategy has been revised in such circumstances; The ‘active defence’ concept has replaced the old line of passive defence, the basic ‘regional deterrence’ principle has been given a new meaning with ‘punishment deterrence’ concept taking place of the old principle of ‘only deterrence’. India is stressing on taking initiatives so as to be able to conduct a hi-tech ‘limited conventional war’ against the enemy ‘under conditions of nuclear deterrence’. D. S. Rajan

In accordance with the GM strategy (mentioned earlier), the Chinese analyst says ‘Looking from the angle of war objectives, India is now laying emphasis to giving China importance while treating Pakistan as lightweight, as compared to the past equal emphasis to China and Pakistan.’

The Chinese have repeatedly said that they are fully aware of the Indian thinking.

China, there is stable political situation, a fast developing economy, a continuously accelerating military modernisation drive and growing comprehensive national strength. India thinks that therefore, the potentials of ‘China threat’ to it are on the rise. It wants to correctly treat the dialectic relation between the changes that have occurred in military threats posed by Pakistan and China and prepare for all types of military struggles. Based on such reasoning, India has proposed the doctrine of ‘two front mobile warfare’.

Bharat has done a lot of rearranging of the chairs on the deck of the Titanic. It thinks that the new pattern of the deck chairs will prevent the looming strategy. Instead of changing course and avoiding the iceberg, it spends all its time on the color scheme of the chairs.  Bharat may be in an illusion

‘In matters of strategic deployment, India has shifted to a strategy of stabilising the western front and strengthening the northern front as well as giving equal emphasis to land and sea warfare, in contrast to the earlier stress only on land warfare.‘

(1) in recent years, India has carried out adjustments in its defence system to suit to the new needs. ‘Stabilising the western front and strengthening the northern front’ is a step in this direction. India has already made plans to dispatch additional forces- two mountain divisions- to the Sino-Indian border and deploy Su-30 fighter aircraft as well as missiles there in order to further strengthen its ‘partial military superiority’ vis-à-vis China, sufficient to fight a ‘middle or small-scale partial border war under hi-tech conditions’,

(2) India is increasing its deployment of mobile warfare-capable troops. Some units, on ‘double combat missions’, can launch mobile operations in both China and Pakistan fronts and

(3) India’s past attention only to land warfare is now getting shifted in the direction of the Indian Ocean, creating a deployment position capable of paying importance to both land and sea. A part of Indian troops so far located in the rear of the borders is being diverted for coastal defence purposes and a new naval fleet has come up in the south to increase strength in respect of the Indian Ocean.

China is not a superpower, nor will she ever seek to be one. If one day China should change her color and turn into a superpower, if she too should play the tyrant in the world, and everywhere subject others to her bullying, aggression and exploitation, the people of the world should identify her as social-imperialism, expose it, oppose it and work together with the Chinese people to overthrow it. Deng Xiaoping

We quote D. S. Rajan again.

‘India is making efforts to create long-range mobile operational strength and gain capacity to launch cross-combat missions.’ The Chinese military expert comments that structural adjustment of the Indian military is in progress with focus on building Indian Navy and Air Force as well as rapid action troops, leading to building up of global combat capability of Indian armed forces. The expert cites in this connection the war doctrines of the Indian Army [ Images ] (2004), Indian Navy (2005) and Indian Air Force (2007).

The analysis above needs to be examined together with a very recent Chinese assessment. Given under the title ‘Panoramic View of International Military Situation in 2009′, the analysis contributed by Ma Kang, deputy director, Institute of Strategic Studies, National Defence University, Liberation Army Daily, December 29 highlights the defence budget increases in the US, Russia [ Images ] and India. It points to India’s ‘24 percent defence budget increase’ in 2009 as compared to previous year as well as efforts to build an aircraft carrier of its own, launch of first home made submarine Arihant and goals set towards possessing ‘three dimensional nuclear strategic capability.’

What stand out are the unmistakable adversarial tones with which the two highly placed Chinese experts have talked about India. Especially, the evaluation of Hao Ding runs contrary to the officially declared perceptions of India and China that each nation is not a threat to other. Observers in India have reasons to raise their eyebrows on the reappearance of the terminology ‘partial border war’ after some gap, more so in a contribution made by an academician close to Chinese hierarchy (the last such reference figured in an unofficial strategic affairs website in November 2008).

Also odd is the timing of such comments when India-China bilateral defence, political and economic ties are progressing steadily — senior Chinese military officers including the Tibet [ Images ] commander have visited India recently, the Indian defence secretary is scheduled to visit Beijing for talks, both India and China have coordinated their actions in the conference at Copenhagen on climatic change, preparations are being made by both sides for the scheduled visit this year to China by the Indian President and lastly, India-China trade volume is slated to touch $60 billion by this year.

Not to place a break on Mr. Rajan’s rhetoric, and burst his bubble, but the Bharati Naval Chief says the following about China:

“In military terms, both conventional and non-conventional, we neither have the capability nor the intention to match China, force for force. These are indeed sobering thoughts and therefore our strategy to deal with China would need to be in consonance with these realities,” Indian Navy Chief, Admiral Suresh Mehta

The coming war between India and China

A basic question would therefore be what is the real meaning of the latest Chinese assessment of Indian defence strategy as above, which, judging from the affiliation of the analyst concerned, can definitely be considered as reflecting official views, especially that of the military. First comes the apparent dichotomy in the thinking of the civilian and military apparatus in China on relationship with India. However, when looked carefully, the reality looks different.

China has always been encouraging expression of strategic opinions and treating them as inputs for decision making at appropriate times. It has at the same time been taking care to see that the required diplomatic options, whether relating to India or other countries, are not prejudiced by such opinions. Specifically, this premise explains the rationale behind China’s support to holding diplomatic initiatives, like talks between special representatives, to solve the boundary issue with India, while at the same time allowing hostile articulations on the subject by its strategists.

Beijing’s such two-track mindset may also be seen as setting a context for understanding the opinion expressed by the Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh [ Images ] during his recent visit to the US regarding China’s ‘assertiveness’ vis-a-vis India of late.

Secondly, it is probable that the analysis clearly bringing out the ‘India threat’ theory, albeit after a gap, has something to do with the US factor. No doubt, it makes no mention of the US, but its appearance subsequent to the issuing of US-China Joint Declaration of November 17, 2009, may have its own meaning. Undeniably, reasons seem to have arisen for Beijing to feel that a qualitative change in its favour has occurred in the triangular China-US-India relations consequent to the opening of a new foreign policy course based on a ’smart power’ concept (said to be a mix of hard and soft power) by the Barack Obama [ Images ] administration.

The US imperative towards China has undergone a shift to encompass a wider vision — from one seeking China’s emergence as a responsible stake holder in the international system to that aiming to establish a ‘positive, cooperative and comprehensive relationship’ in the 21st century. In addition, the US has chosen to adopt a ‘pragmatic’ approach on human rights issue in China. If China thinks that it has as such come to occupy a superior position in the Sino-US equation at this juncture in the background of it having emerged as America’s biggest creditor, the same may not be misplaced.

The simple fact that the Bush policy of building Bharat as a counterweight to China is no longer feasible or part of the Obama Doctrine. Washington cannot afford to anger its biggest creditor. Bharati policy makers are still under the illusion of Condaleeza Rice when she promised the Bharatis that the USA would make Bharat a Superpower.

For Beijing, the same reason may hold good in believing that the US will be inclined to tone down its support to India on sensitive issues like the boundary problem and that the time is opportune to intensify its strategic pressure on India.

Its readiness to agree with Washington to ‘cooperate’ on India-Pakistan issues, which touched Indian sensitivities, may relate to such thinking. It may at the same time be not wrong to assume that some Chinese pronouncements (official journal Liaowang, December 1, 2009) considering China-US and China-India relations not as a zero sum game, are only for public consumption.

China does not see a huge threat from Bharat. It is did, it would simply open the technology spigot to Pakistan, and Myanmar—and cut down Bharat to size. Already there are rumors that Burma wants to acquire Nuclear weapons. Lanka has allowed a port to China right on the Bharati border

Lastly, China can be expected to factor the latest views of experts in formulation of its own defence strategy vis-a-vis India. The assessment that China, not Pakistan, is India’s priority military target is not going to be missed by the defence policy planners in China. But China may not need to make fresh responses. It has already consolidated its troop strength in the border, established firm defence ties with Indian ocean littorals and stepped up military help to Pakistan; On the last mentioned, Beijing’s recent justification of its military aid to Pakistan as a response to India’s getting arms from the US and Russia, unveils what could be in store for future.

China’s occasional talks on partial border war with India need close attention of New Delhi [ Images ] as they could be in conformity with the need expressed by China to ‘win local wars under conditions of informatisation’ (China’s latest Defence White Paper). In a broader sense, trends in China towards enhancing its extended range force projection capabilities and establishing overseas naval bases, may have implications for the entire region, especially for countries like Japan [ Images], India and South China sea littorals, all having territorial problems with China.

One has only to take note of the US position that China’s military modernisation is changing the balance of power in East Asia.

China is giving mixed signals, but it would be in India’s interests to continue ‘engaging’ China. It should at the same time take all necessary steps to protect its strategic interests; India’s revised defence strategy proves that it is prepared to do the same. D S Rajan is director, Chennai Centre for China Studies. China experts feel Indian defence strategy treats China, not Pakistan, as priority target, which they also believe provides for a partial border war, writes D S Rajan.

The pace of Chinese development in the past 60 years is one of the wonders of the world. Not long ago the entire Chinese nation was kept in bondage by the East India Company which forced the country to continue to import opium. When the patriots revolted, Britain forced two wars on them. Finally Mao Ze Dung led the country to freedom from the machinations of Imperial Japan, Colonial Britain and a US which was supporting others in the civil war. In the past century the Chinese have walked softly and hidden the Big stick. It has whispered where others have shouted. The leadership in Beiing has bitten its lip on Taiwan and Arunchal Pradesh. It has kept quiet on the boundary line South of Tibet and kept quiet on international issues that it felt strongly about. Now the results are evident for all to see.

National Security: As China announces yet another double-digit increase in its military budget, and as this and other threats continue to grow, President Obama plans to spend just 3% of GDP on defense by 2016.

Almost unnoticed in January was the presence of Chinese warships deployed in the Gulf of Aden, south of the Saudi peninsula, to assist in the international anti-piracy mission. The deployment of naval vessels 4,000 miles from home is significant and historic. It demonstrates that China now has a blue-water navy.

China has announced in advance of the annual meeting of the National People’s Congress that it intends to increase its 2009 defense budget by 14.9%. This follows increases of 17.8% in 2007 and 17.6% in 2008. The actual increase may be higher, as China has traditionally kept many things, including major arms purchases, off budget.

China’s military budget has grown at an average rate of 16% the past decade. China’s military buildup is clearly aimed at acquiring the ability to overwhelm the defenses of, and successfully attack, U.S. carrier battle groups that might come to the aid of Taiwan in a crisis. Investors dot com

LAHORE – The Indian government is preparing to launch a full-fledged anti-Naxalite military operation in a bid to flush out separatists Maoist movement in three different areas, considered as tri-junctions of worst Naxalite-affected states.
The Indian government sources in New Delhi, quoting Indian Home Secretary claimed that India is all set to launch joint army, Air Force and paramilitary forces operations against Naxalites in March 2010.

The Indian Cabinet Committee of Security (CCS) has also approved the government’s plan to counter Maoists in the six affected states. Initially, the operation would be carried out in four states namely Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Orissa and Maharashtra, where according to Indian Intelligence reports most of the Maoist infrastructure, training camps and strongholds are located.
On the basis of results of operations in these four states, joint Indian forces will be moved into remaining two states as well as, other affected areas. In all, joint operations will be carried out in phases in 20 Naxals affected states.

Troops from Indian Army, Indian Air Force and personnel of CoBRA (Commando Battalion for Resolute Action), a central force, with the state police in frontal role, have already been earmarked for the operations. Although, Indian Union Home Minister P Chidambaram, during his visit to Maoist-affected states of Chattisgarh and Jharkand had ruled out that there was any move to involve the army in the fight against Naxalites but this is what India is hiding.

India has drawn up a multi-pronged strategy that will target top leaders, win people through a propaganda war and offer cadres a surrender-and-rehabilitation policy while launching an extensive armed operation in Maoist strongholds across the country.

The central government has also asked the state governments to speed up development works and employment generation programmes in the Naxal-affected areas so as to counter left wing extremism with development. A military advisor has been appointed to prepare an action plan for dealing with Maoists.
Indian central government is actively considering setting up of brigade headquarters or Army cantonments in interior areas of Naxal affected states.

The intelligence summaries submitted by the end of 2009 by Indian Military Intelligence (MI), Intelligence Bureau (IB) and Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) disclosed that Naxal menace could be wiped out from across the country only through joint operations to be conducted by Indian Air Force, Indian army and paramilitary forces. The operations against Naxals, according to a rough estimate, would last more than two years in which Israeli and US commandos would assist India with arms and expertise.

The government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is confident that they could wipe out Naxalites in a period between 12 to 30 months.

Defense experts claimed that New Delhi is going to commit a blunder at a time when worst political crisis has shaken the lower and upper Houses of the Indian democratic set up amid no public opinion in favour of the military offensive. Any full-fledged anti-Naxalite operation will be a great challenge to the Indian security establishment.
Crisis on Telangana has aggravated. Indian Prime Minister has backtracked on the government’s assurance on the formation of new Telangana state, saying it would “not be created in haste.”

The resignations of legislators from the Andhra and Rayalaseema regions of Andhara Pradesh have risen to close to 100 and nearly 130 protested on the bifurcation. Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister K Rosaiah expressed his helplessness in resolving the crisis that has engulfed the state. His 20 cabinet ministers have threatened to resign. Meanwhile during his first media appearance, K Chandrashekhar Rao of TRS reiterated that ‘there is no going back on the demand for Telangana’, however, he conceded that ‘we are not setting any deadlines.’

Naxalites are backed by the banned Communist Party of India (Maoist). According to Prime Minister of India, Naxalites’ extremism today constitutes the single most important internal security threat to India. The Naxal groups have spread their activities to as many as 22 out of 28 states in the country.

The term ‘naxalite’ draws its origin from an organized armed peasant resistance against the landlords that began in March 1967 in a small village called Naxalbari in the state of West Bengal. It signalled the birth of a new movement and since then, all forms of armed struggle with socio-economic development of the downtrodden as the cause have come to be termed ‘naxalite’. Other terms that are used to describe the movement are ‘leftwing extremism’ and ‘radical Maoism’.

Significantly, aside from the internal dynamics of the Maoist/ Naxal insurgency India also perceives an external element to it. Indian security and intelligence agencies maintain that the Maoists are receiving weapons from Bangladesh, Myanmar, Nepal and China through illegal channels.

There is also an increasing feeling for the need of a dialogue with all the groups involved in the Maoist/Naxal insurgency. The dialogue with Maoist is mere a ploy by the government to buy time before launching a stronger offensive against the Maoists.

One wonders, why Indian politicians and members of the civil society are reflecting ignorance on the issue.

It is right time to lobby against all those who are interested in misadventure against Naxalites as it would lead to popular movements for separatism, allowing foreign conspirators to interfere directly in the internal affairs of the country.

New Delhi has already allowed Indian Air Force to retaliate if it is attacked by Maoists. Similarly, unusual movement of Indian troops has taken place in Maoist-affected areas. The sources said India’s security agencies are trawling the international arms market to upgrade the country’s counter-insurgency capabilities. The Indian military has floated global tenders for more than 800 bulletproof vehicles, likely to be given to security agencies involved in counter-insurgency operations in Moist effected areas.

India announced a separate 10 billion dollar homeland security upgrade, to be completed before 2016. It is initially looking at affordable technology-laser-guided armaments, light vehicles and drones as priority purchases

Iran imports gas so that it can export its own gas, at higher prices (in liquefied form) in containers to Europe. This is a smart value added enterprise.

Turkmenistan is using its geography to sell gas to Iran and to China. There are also prospects for TAP (Turkmenistan Afghanistan Pakistan) pipeline.

DOVLETABAD GAS FIELD: Turkmenistan, Central Asia’s largest gas producer, launched a new pipeline on Wednesday that will more than double its gas sales to Iran. Together with a pipeline to China launched last month, the new link will enable Turkmenistan to ship more gas to Iran and China combined than to Russia’s Gazprom, which has dominated the region’s market for decades.

“Two pipelines (the old and the new one) will be able to ship up to 20 billion cubic metres of gas,” Turkmen President Kurbanguly Berdymukhamedov told reporters at the Dovletabad gas field where the 31-kilometre link originates. Up until now, Turkmenistan has operated a smaller pipeline to Iran with a capacity of 8 billion cubic metres (bcm) a year. It used to sell up to 50 bcm a year to Russia but supplies were halted for most of 2009 due to a pricing dispute and will fall to 30 bcm this year. Last month, Turkmenistan launched a pipeline to China, which would eventually ship up to 40 bcm of gas a year.

Iran uses Turkmen gas, also shipped in liquefied form by tankers over the Caspian, to supply its northern provinces and free up more of its own gas for exports. “All countries in the region will benefit from this project,” said Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who also attended the ceremony in the windswept steppe. The West is courting Turkmenistan to secure supplies for the EU-sponsored Nabucco pipeline prject, which would bypass Russia. Ashgabat has expressed interest in supplying Nabucco but is yet to take any practical steps to join the project. Reuters

Islamabad should take advantage of geography. Pakistan should set up a Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) or Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) plant near the Iranian border, and send the LNG containers to Kashmir, Gilgit Baltistan, and all other areas of Pakistan where natural gas is not available. The surplus should be sold in the international market. Potential buyers could be Bharat (aka India) or other countries of the pacific rim which do not have gas. The containerized gas would be expensive for Delhi but it would enable it to diversify its sources and not be dependent on Pakistani geography or Islamabad’s temperament.