We have lived and spent enough of our time in cuckoo’s land riding on the cavalry of our emotions that we are quite habitual of. Let us come down and try to land on the tarmac of… but which tarmac. Will any nation will accept us and offer us a landing with our flags of extremism and hatred that very carry.
Have we ever thought who is paying for these decoy flags of our hatred that we are hoisting in Northern FATA area? Try to look behind the foggy screens. It is all paid for by our enemies. The people who are carrying the flag staff seen wearing the religious garbs are heftily paid pursuing their rapacious greed and Norco traders. There is Satan preaching the Gospel and using the religion as his strong weapon.

By hoisting of the decoy flags in FATA by our stooges, serves US cause; It gives her the reason and the pretext to stay at our next door in the name of fighting Terrorism and to prolong its stay to advance her hegemonic ambitions. Our Pashtoon Maliks and other stooges are benefited with their perks and are free to run their Narcotic businesses. Please do not get eluded that some one is serving God here.

When these stooges carry out the assigned task; it marks their presence and thus are called the ‘terrorist are breeding terrorism in the safe havens’.

Musharraf received some 10 billions dollars to show that Pakistan is trying its best to quell the terrorism and now the new government has been sanctioned some 15 billions dollar to do the same job what all was being done by the security forces under Musharraf.

The show of terrorism is that it goes on. US find the reason to stay on; that one by one the countries are coming in US fold. Middle East gone in fold, Iraq, Afghanistan all occupied and now just be ready that soon we will find our self in the streets of Peshawar and Rawalpindi made to stand with our hands up facing wall and legs sprawled; Yankees searching our clothes.

And if against all the odds if Musharraf has done some thing good. We must thank him… for a change…at least.

I have just depicted three news (all from today’s paper) from a renowned Indian newspaper, which gives you an idea that the time has ripened for Pakistan to actively involved in Kashmir problem once again. If our stupid politicians wasted this opportunity like they did in 1962 and 1965, this opportunity will never come back.

Please look below:-

Kashmir needs freedom from India: Arundhati Roy

SRINAGAR: Activist and author Arundhati Roy, who was present at the massive Monday rally, said that the people of Kashmir have made themselves abundantly clear. ( Watch )

“And if no one is listening then it is because they don’t want to hear. Because this is a referendum. People don’t need anyone to represent them; they are representing themselves. As somebody who has followed people’s movements and who has been in rallies and at the heart or the edge of things, I don’t think you can dispute what you see here,” she told TOI .

Roy also said that “since the 1930s, there have been debates and disputes about who has the right to represent the Kashmiri people, whether it was Hari Singh or Sheikh Abdullah or someone else. And the debate continues till today whether it is the Hurriyat or some other party.”

Then she added, “But I think today the people have represented themselves.”

Roy concluded with words, “India needs azadi from Kashmir as much as Kashmir needs azadi from India.”

300 comments on this story. Read them and post your own.

Print EMail Discuss New Bookmark/Share

Save Write to Editor

We are Pakistanis, says Syed Geelani

SRINAGAR: Hardline separatist leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani on Monday demanded the merger of Jammu and Kashmir with Pakistan, as leaders of the moderate Hurriyat faction spoke about independence and a dialogue over the state.

Addressing a mammoth gathering at the tourist reception centre here, Gillani said there was “no solution to the Kashmir issue other than merger with Pakistan”.

“We are Pakistanis and Pakistan is us because we are tied with the country through Islam,” he roared, as the crowd cheered him and chanted: “Hum Pakistani hain, Pakistan hamara hai” (We are Pakistanis, Pakistan is ours).
Taking a dig at the moderate Hurriyat leaders who shared the stage with him, Gillani said the leadership issue of the Kashmiri separatist movement was “solved today”.

“Do you have faith in my leadership? I will be faithful to you till my death and will carry everyone along,” he said, as the crowd applauded him shouting in unison “zaroor” (certainly).

Srinagar streets on Monday danced to the tune of ‘‘jeeve jeeve Pakistan” as frenzied youth chanted ‘‘teri jaan meri jaan, Pakistan, Pakistan” and the Polo Ground resonated to the rhythm of ‘‘teri mandi, meri mandi, Rawalpindi, Rawalpindi”.

Hardliner Syed Ali Shah Geelani has every reason to be mighty pleased with the turn of events which marked the success of his efforts to put himself and his mentors in Islamabad back in the J&K equation just as they appeared to have been pushed to the margins.

But then came the twist. Giddy by the success of bringing secession back on the agenda, Geelani committed the indiscretion of coronating himself as the leader of the ‘azadi’ flock.

Quite a bungle it was. The boast pricked the sensitive egos of the rest in the secessionist choir and the rift became visible within no time, perhaps creating an opening for the government to try and salvage its chestnuts out of the fire. Geelani’s unilateralism left the likes of Mirwaiz Umer Farooq, Yasin Malik and Shabbir Shah miffed and they left the scene without submitting the memorandum to the UN Military Observer’s office, for which the march was called in the first place.

The strong bid to appropriate the ‘sadarat’ of separatism, which has parties of myriad hues, was said to have sent others in quick meetings to hammer out their responses. ‘‘The chinks are there to see,” said an analyst. Geelani sensed the resentment as he addressed a press conference in the evening to dub his ‘I am the sole leader of the tehreek’ claim as a ‘‘slip of tongue”. He apologised, said the movement was bigger than the leaders and the struggle would continue, reposing faith in the coordination committee of Hurriyat factions.

If the octogenarian leader sought to make amends, it had already reduced the fourth show of strength since the Amarnath issue triggered a surge in sentiments in the form of march to UN office into a game in one-upmanship. Yasin Malik had walked out of the coordination panel’s meet on Sunday at Geelani’s residence by reportedly expressing reservations on the pro-Pakistan agenda being pushed by others.

The Hurriyat factions have been trying to put up a united face, having led campaigns like ‘Muzaffarabad chalo’, mourning at Idgah for Sheikh Abdul Aziz who died in police firing and ‘Pampore chalo’ on Saturday. Now, all eyes are on how the other components of the separatist camp take Geelani’s apology. The separatists have already announced that the agitation would continue, rebuffing speculation that the march to UN could end the demonstrations which have brought Srinagar to a halt for over a month. On display on Monday was the fact that the fresh surge in ‘azadi’ sentiment is driven by a religious rightwing tilt for across the border.

Related Stories

Amarnath row: Protesters agree to hold talks
J&K: 2 lakh people court arrest
Curfew relaxed in Jammu; Srinagar calm
We are Pakistanis, says Geelani
Kashmiris play to UN gallery
Secessionists’ plan hatched in Pak, says Home Secy
Hurriyat leaders ask UN to intervene in J&K issue
PM calls all political parties to resolve J&K issue
March plan to UN office has Srinagar on edge
Governor invites Amarnath Sangarsh Samiti for talks
After 20 days, valley opens for business
‘Local Muslims stood by Amarnath yatris’
Cong weighs options to end Amarnath impasse
Govt using excessive force in J&K: Omar Abdullah
Centre should involve Hurriyat in peace process: PDP

Comments to the Editor
Now we know whats the reason that terrorist are s | Read
19 Aug 2008, 2216 hrs IST, By Sonjay, India
Isn’t this the same “environmental activist” who | Read
19 Aug 2008, 2215 hrs IST, By Mathew, USA
“I think people of kashmir have represented thems | Read
19 Aug 2008, 2210 hrs IST, By Rajiv, New Delhi

View all comments >>

SWAMINOMICS
Independence Day for Kashmir

On August 15, India celebrated independence from the British Raj. But Kashmiris staged a bandh demanding independence from India. A day symbolising the end of colonialism in India became a day symbolising Indian colonialism in the Valley.

As a liberal, i dislike ruling people against their will. True, nation-building is a difficult and complex exercise, and initial resistance can give way to the integration of regional aspirations into a larger national identity — the end of Tamil secessionism was a classical example of this.

I was once hopeful of Kashmir’s integration, but after six decades of effort, Kashmiri alienation looks greater than ever. India seeks to integrate with Kashmir, not rule it colonially. Yet, the parallels between British rule in India and Indian rule in Kashmir have become too close for my comfort.

Many Indians say that Kashmir legally became an integral part of India when the maharaja of the state signed the instrument of accession. Alas, such legalisms become irrelevant when ground realities change. Indian kings and princes, including the Mughals, acceded to the British Raj. The documents they signed became irrelevant when Indians launched an independence movement.

The British insisted for a long time that India was an integral part of their Empire, the jewel in its crown, and would never be given up. Imperialist Blimps remained in denial for decades. I fear we are in similar denial on Kashmir.

The politically correct story of the maharaja’s accession ignores a devastating parallel event. Just as Kashmir had a Hindu maharaja ruling over a Muslim majority, Junagadh had a Muslim nawab ruling over a Hindu majority. The Hindu maharaja acceded to India, and the Muslim nawab to Pakistan.

But while India claimed that the Kashmiri accession to India was sacred, it did not accept Junagadh’s accession to Pakistan. India sent troops into Junagadh, just as Pakistan sent troops into Kashmir. The difference was that Pakistan lacked the military means to intervene in Junagadh, while India was able to send troops into Srinagar. The Junagadh nawab fled to Pakistan, whereas the Kashmir maharaja sat tight. India’s double standard on Junagadh and Kashmir was breathtaking.

Do you think the people of Junagadh would have integrated with Pakistan after six decades of genuine Pakistani effort? No? Then can you really be confident that Kashmiris will stop demanding azaadi and integrate with India?

The British came to India uninvited. By contrast, Sheikh Abdullah, the most popular politician in Kashmir, supported accession to India subject to ratification by a plebiscite. But his heart lay in independence for Kashmir, and he soon began manoeuvering towards that end. He was jailed by Nehru, who then declared Kashmir’s accession was final and no longer required ratification by a plebiscite. The fact that Kashmir had a Muslim majority was held to be irrelevant, since India was a secular country empowering citizens through democracy

I think people are still sleeping in Pakistan, Wake up buddies, Time to defend Pakistan in person.

The thankless that we are; we wanted to see him go down defunct and humiliated.Because we did not want to say him;thank you.

Here where I live; in our daily life, you simply board any bus and buy a ticket from the driver; you may hear the exchange of word thank you being said at least four times and it is repeated every time when ever some one boards a bus. Here, only the people love life and know how to conduct grace fully.
It is very Sad that he had to go like this!

[Woh andheyroon main ajab ik roshni ka khawab tha]
[ who ujaloun main chiragh e noor lehranay ka naam]

By Isambard Wilkinson in Islamabad
Last Updated: 5:12PM BST 18 Aug 2008

He swaggered about Washington promoting his memoirs and revealed why he had forged an alliance with the US after the September 11 attacks: he said America had threatened to “bomb Pakistan back to the Stone Age”.

His regime was defined by his relationship to Washington: it made him, and, finally it undid him.

Last year the White House referred to Mr Musharraf as “an indispensable ally”. This week Condoleezza Rice described him in the past tense, saying that he “has been a good ally”. It was, as they say in Texas, adios.

In some ways, his exit is symptomatic of Western policy failure. A British and American-backed plan that envisaged his party sharing power with the Pakistan People’s Party was blown apart with the brutal realities of Pakistani politics: the leader, Benazir Bhutto was assassinated, and, the two parties loathed each other.

But in many ways the secular-minded general, who is devoted to his two Pekinese dogs and partial to a drink and the occasional cigarette, had served his purpose.

He had, ostensibly, reversed Pakistan’s pro-Taliban stance, handed over a handful of key al-Qa’eda leaders and espoused an acceptable liberalism that was dubbed “enlightened moderation”.

However, due to a series of bungles, and not without irony because he was perceived as a “Bush puppet”, he had also become unpopular at home at a time of rampant Anti-Americanism and when Washington needed a popular, democratic government in Islamabad to persuade Pakistanis of their own need to tackle extremism.

Washington, keen to burnish its credentials as a harbinger of global democracy, had set its key ally in the “war on terror” an almost impossible task last year: to step down as army chief, hold free and fair elections and to remain in power. In the end he had to go as he had failed to establish his own power-base with the military no longer at his disposal.

“Musharraf had been the first choice of the West, but now they had understood that Musharraf had to go,” said Tanvir Ahmad Khan, a former foreign minister of Pakistan. And as the resignation has proved, he was, unwillingly, part of the transition to democracy.

But his relationship with Washington had always been tricky. The general saw his job as striking a balance between placating the United States, which has bankrolled his regime and pledged $1.5 billion (£860 million) in military aid, and living amid Pakistan’s powerful pro-jihad Islamic groups, which had tried three times to kill him and only just failed.

The West continued to believe that he clandestinely allowed military intelligence to play a double game by pursuing Pakistan’s ambitions for “strategic depth” in Afghanistan through its jihadi proxies.

During his regime the North West Frontier Province, a sensitive area on the Afghan border, was “Talibanised”.

The reverses continued. He presided over economic growth but it ended in unemployment and increases in the prices of basic foodstuffs, sparking riots.

A large military operation to contain a low-level insurgency in Balochistan, where a tribal chief, Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti, was killed by the armed forces, also proved unpopular.

For Western ears, Mr Musharraf used to say, that being a military strongman he had “unity of command”.

But after he stepped down as army chief last November, the army had withdrawn its political support for Mr Musharraf in its bid to allow the government to prosper and to mend its own reputation that has been battered by years of military rule and the unpopular prosecution of “America’s war”.

The civilian government must step into the void to “taking ownership” of counter-terrorism operations and set aside partisan rivalry to provide the country with stability.

Most do not expect the two partners to hold the coalition government together for long.

In theory, the current, all-powerful chief of army staff, General Ashfaq Kiyani, retains that command and the confidence of Washington.

Pakistani forces have continued to conduct a bloody campaign against militants on the tribal areas.

However, the West continues to suspect elements of Pakistan’s military intelligence of aiding al-Qa’eda and Taliban militants. A civilian government may be even less successful than Mr Musharraf in reining in these religious, nationalist elements who regard jihadis as a “strategic asset”.

Since the civilian government came to power hardline nationalists in the Pakistani establishment have rekindled hostilities with India along the de facto border of disputed Kashmir.

Without the restraining hand of Mr Musharraf, whose greatest achievement was perhaps advancing peace talks with India, relations between the two nuclear-armed neighbours could once again deteriorate.

Previous civilian governments have been undermined and removed by the military. With Mr Musharraf gone, once again the army and a civilian government will have to negotiate a balance of power.