Pakistan League

In an article likely to raise Indian hackles, a Chinese strategist contends that Beijing should break up India into 20-30 independent states with the help of 'friendly countries' like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and Bhutan.

The publication of the article nearly coincided with the 13th round of India-China border talks that ended in New Delhi Saturday on a positive note, with Beijing emphasizing the need to build strategic trust and elevate strategic partnership to a new level to include coordination on global issues.

Written in Chinese, the article, 'If China takes a little action, the so-called Great Indian Federation can be broken up,' is published in the new edition of the website of the China International Institute for Strategic Studies (CIISS), an influential think tank that advises Beijing on global and strategic issues.

On April 8th, 2009, British police arrested 12 Pakistani Muslim terror suspects, and Prime Minister Gordon Brown said the police and intelligence services had thwarted a “very big terrorist plot”. British media, intelligence agencies, politicians and Gordon Brown spent next two weeks trying to convince British public of the terrible terrorist plot these Pakistani students were about to execute. The entire operation was quickly named Operation Pathway. Some of the headlines on the main pages of the leading British newspapers read:

• “Shops and nightclub were terror targets,” Daily Express headline on 9 April
• “Al-Qaida terror plot to bomb Easter shoppers,” Daily Telegraph on 10 April
• “Students of terror,” Daily Mail, 10 April 2009
• “Scramble to find the Easter bomb factory,” Times, 10 April 2009

British news channels were going hand in hand with the print media. The laudable BBC kept repeating, “We (Nick Ravenscroft, BBC correspondent) had been told by police sources that an attack could have taken place within days or weeks”.

Within two weeks, all 12 suspects had been released from police custody. To date no terrorism charges or even criminal charges of any kind had been filed against any of them. Except for the British Pakistani students all were then imprisoned without any charges based on the allegation that they pose security threat to Britain. After a few months in British prison due to ill-treatment and with Ramadhan approaching, majority of the students accepted British offer to return to Pakistan – unable to defend their position of innocence in the court.

It is a well known fact that nearly all of the Western Nations are obsessed with population growth and in fact it is the only environmental issue for which they cannot be blamed. The brilliant earth systems scientist James Lovelock, for example, claimed in August 2009 that “those who fail to see that population growth and climate change are two sides of the same coin are either ignorant or hiding from the truth. These two huge environmental problems are inseparable and to discuss one while ignoring the other is irrational.”(1)

Let us all see how far this statement and belief holds in light of facts and figures.

A paper published in September 2009 in the journal Environment and Urbanization shows that the places where population has been growing fastest are those in which carbon dioxide has been growing most slowly, and vice versa. Between 1980 and 2005, for example, Sub-Saharan Africa produced 18.5% of the world’s population growth and just 2.4% of the growth in CO2. North America turned out 4% of the extra people, but 14% of the extra emissions. Sixty-three per cent of the world’s population growth happened in places with very low emissions(2).

Even this does not capture it. The paper points out that around one sixth of the world’s population is so poor that it produces no significant emissions at all. This is also the group whose growth rate is likely to be highest. Households in Pakistan earning less than 5,000 rupees a month use a fifth of the electricity per head and one seventh of the transport fuel of households earning Rs. 50,000 or more. Street sleepers use almost nothing. Those who live by processing waste (a large part of the urban underclass) often save more greenhouse gases than they produce.

Many of the emissions for which developing countries like Pakistan are blamed should in fairness belong to West. Gas flaring by companies exporting oil from Nigeria, for example, has produced more greenhouse gases than all other sources in sub-Saharan Africa put together(3). Even deforestation in developing countries is driven mostly by commercial operations delivering timber, meat and animal feed to rich consumers. The rural poor do far less harm(4).

Powers to be have chalked out a simple yet VERY devastating plan for Pakistan for the coming years. Of course, their first choice is to have disposed off this country once and for all. However, in case this again proves difficult to achieve the other option is to put this country under so much debt that no matter how patriotic the next government is, it will have no choice but to do the bidding of “powers to be” just to keep the country’s economy at a functioning level. This is the reason international agencies are providing “aid” to Pakistan at such an unprecedented scale, something which wasn’t witnessed even under West’s best friend General Pervez Musharraf. With the economic and political turmoil and foreign debt this government will the country with, everyone can sleep easy that Pakistan will not be able to have any decisive authority for many years to come.

And this ends my five sentences.

SUGAR CRISIS

* Domestic sugar prices have been rising sharply in recent weeks and the government has tried to deflect criticism and boost supplies by importing sugar and cracking down on hoarders and millers whom it accuses of holding back stocks.

But many Pakistanis believe the millers are protected by powerful political interests.

"Pakistan's Top 10 Most Wanted Terrorists Belong to Six Militant And Sectarian [Sunni/Shi'ite] Organizations Linked to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban"

"According to well-placed Interior Ministry sources in Islamabad, Pakistan's top 10 most wanted terrorists belong to six militant and sectarian [Sunni/Shi'ite] organizations linked to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Four of the 10 are affiliated with the TTP; two belong to the LeJ, while one each is associated with the TNSM, the JeM, the HuJI and the LeI. They include Maulana Fazlullah, the fugitive Emir of the Swat chapter of the Tehreek-e-Nifaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi (TNSM); Hakimullah Mehsud; Qari Hussain Mehsud; Maulvi Faqeer Mohammad and Waliur Rehman of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP); Matiur Rehman and Qari Zafar of the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ); Maulana Ilyas Kashmiri of the Harkat ul-Jihad al-Islami (HuJI); Rashid Rauf of the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM); and Mangal Bagh of the Lashkar-e-Islam (LeI)."

No. 1 - Maulana Fazlullah

"With Baitullah Mehsud already down, Maulana Fazlullah has become the No. 1 most wanted terrorist. He is the son-in-law of Maulana Sufi Mohammed, the founder of TNSM. Born March 1, 1975, Fazlullah is widely known as Mullah Radio for using illegal FM channels to broadcast vituperative speeches, threatening people with dire consequences should they not adhere to shari'a and instigating the residents of Swat into taking part in jihad. He has been missing since April 2009, since the Pakistan Army launched a massive operation to dismantle his jihadi infrastructure following the collapse of a shari'a-for-peace agreement between Maulana Sufi Mohammed and the government. Though the Army has reclaimed Swat district, Maulana Fazlullah remains at large. He carries a reward of Rs 5 million on his head."

No. 2 - Hakimullah Mehsud

Six months after her aunt Benazir Bhutto was assassinated, Fatima Bhutto is fighting to reveal the truth surrounding the murder of her father in 1996 — and making some very dangerous enemies

 As the convoy neared home, the street lights were abruptly turned off. The police snipers were ready in position; some had climbed up the trees lining the avenue to get clear shots. Their guns were loaded, the roadblocks had been erected, the surrounding lanes sealed off. The guards outside the different embassies nearby had been told to retreat within their compounds in expectation of trouble. By nine o’clock, all 80 police were in position, commanded by four senior officers. There was complete silence, but for the occasional buzz of static on the police radios.

It was September 20, 1996, and Murtaza Bhutto, Benazir’s younger brother, was returning late from campaigning in a distant part of Karachi. He had come home to Pakistan the previous year after a long period in exile to challenge his more famous sister for a role in the leadership of the family party, the Pakistan People’s Party, or PPP. Benazir was then the prime minister, and Murtaza’s decision to take her on had put him into direct conflict not only with his sister, but also with her ambitious and powerful husband, Asif Ali Zardari.

I'll start this short write-up with a fact that when Musharraf was asked about British security, he politely refused, after which the UK Government arranged for a detail on the premise that Musharraf in public is a danger for the British public. But since only two parties, namely: i) Musharraf; and ii) British Government can agree or deny with this statement and our current discussion is not dependent on this fact, we would continue on.

A few weeks back a research report was released that the British Royalty and politicians are costing British tax payers billions of dollars annually. One newspaper also reported a similar story, however, strangely the news was quickly hushed up. A couple of weeks passed by when other reports started emerging about the security costs of British Royalty, politicians and some bureaucrats. Next day, out of nowhere every British newspaper ran the cover story of Musharraf costing Britain 25000 pounds per dinner, which is automatically assumed to be nine million pounds (£9 million) annually. As expected, all the limelight from British Royalty, politicians and bureaucrats has been diverted to Musharraf. Believe it or not, he still commands such an attention. So, in one sentence, this was the only reason for the release of this news, to get the attention away from British elite enjoying their luxurious lifestyles at the expense of recession stricken British public. And they succeeded.

Before ending this short critique, it should be brought into notice that every newspaper gave the heading "Musharraf costing 25000 pounds per Dinner", however, none of them had provided details of whether this is daily dinner at his home which costs British tax payers this much or his formal dinners at five star hotels which costs British tax payers twenty-five thousand pounds, and which happens once or twice a month. In the latter case the total cost would come down, dramatically from 9 million pounds to mere quarter of a million pounds.

The British media should be congratulated. Just with a play of words, they have very successfully not only completely diverted the attention of the public away from the real leeches, but kept themselves completely innocent as they did not say:

i) Musharraf costs £ 25,000 daily for the 365 days of a year;
ii) Musharraf costs £ 9 million annually; and
iii) whether they are talking about his casual dinners which he takes at his home or formal dinners at five star hotels/special occasions only.

In the last few weeks a sudden increase has been seen in news, internet activity and blogs related to the issue of security costs for General (retd.) Pervez Musharraf. The instance a news is put up giving the details of the costs on Musharraf's security, in minutes up to ten comments appear all not only criticizing the exercise but all saying nearly the same thing. Also, up to two of these comments are seemingly from Muslims who demean Musharraf for not relying on God's protection but on humans.

If one reads the news and comments below the news, he/she quickly comes to the conclusion:

i) Musharraf=Saddam/Augusto Pinochet;
ii) Musharraf has looted untold amounts of money which he is not using but instead making British tax payers pay for his security;
iii) Musharraf is too scared to go out in open without British security; and
iv) Musharraf is having a life of luxury and pleasure in his "three bed-room flat" in a not so posh area of London where no millionaires or politicians live.

Some Other Facts

No one talked about the security details provided to Prime Ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. No British news paper ran the story nor does the public know how much it costed the British tax payer.

Although it is indirectly well propagated that Musharraf has looted untold amounts of monies from Pakistan but he is unwilling to use any of his money to buy his protection, i.e. he is willing to die rather than use the money he has "looted". Also, this person who has looted billions is living in a middle class suburb of London in a simple three bed room flat. All this implies that Musharraf has looted billions but does not want to spend a single penny of these looted on himself - and has safely stashed them away (for who and what reason no one knows). Contrast this to two former Prime Ministers of Pakistan who looted billions from the poor public and bought palaces in every country they visited.

Comparing Musharraf's security with other political figures in London, we need to highlight another fact. If one of them is given a security detail of 1 pound, in return he/she usually spends 100 or 1000 pounds (from the looted money). This is not the case with Musharraf. In fact he is the first such personality who is giving the British a "net loss", i.e. British Government is spending a lot more on him than he is spending in London. This must be one of the causes of sleepless nights for some.

Currently, there are many others who are recipient of similar British courtesy; Altaf Hussain to name one. But how much he is getting from British Government/MI6 or how much he is giving them no one knows.

The case of Salman Rushdie is purposely not discussed here. However, this much would be said: There have been numerous deadly assassination attempts on Musharraf from which he had barely escaped alive, but none so far on Rushdie. Dectractors who have announced to kill Musharraf are still alive and at large - the only person who declared Rushdie to be eligible for murder is dead.

The Hidden Truth

Musharraf never asked the British Government for his current security detail. When he was offered in the beginning he politely declined. After which he was deemed a public security risk and round the clock monitoring of his activities was initiated on the premise that he is a public hazard.

To be short and simple, the British Government needs to keep a "very" close eye on Musharraf's activities.  If it uses normal espionage techniques it would lead to a disgrace on international level if it ever comes out (which would eventually come out). There are two reasons (which are purposely not discussed here) for which the British aka US needs a close eye on Musharraf. Seeing no other way, they opted for this unconventional yet somewhat effective approach. Seeing the media raising its eyebrows over the amount being spent on keeping Musharraf's activities in check, the government purposely released the figures and is trying to take the story in a completely different direction.

Food for Thought

One last food for thought for all Musharraf detractors. If he has looted billions from Pakistan then:
i) why doesn't he spend any of that on himself or his family (including son and daughter)?
ii) why doesn't he use his looted money to buy his security if he feels threatened?

No one wants to answer these two questions.