Banner Advertiser

Friday, March 16, 2012

[ALOCHONA] Tigers beat India: A different banner



Tigers beat India: A different banner



http://www.daily-sun.com/details_Tigers-turn-giant-killers_87_1_1_1_0.html
http://www.dailydinkal.net/2012/03/17/1/details/1_r4_c3.jpg

__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Fwd: Imperial Eye on Pakistan



------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Zoglul Husain <zoglul@hotmail.co.uk>
Date: Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:42 PM
Subject: RE: Imperial Eye on Pakistan
To: Isha Khan <bdmailer@gmail.com>


The article narrates the true situation in Pakistan. Part 2 is expected to describe the current scenario.
 
For a long time now, the Neo-cons of the US, Israel and India have been working together on a plan of Balkanization of the Middle East and Pakistan. They have plans to Balkanize Bangladesh, Myanmar and other countries too. But after the defeat of the US in Afghan and Iraq wars and subsequently their economic crisis in 2008-09, the US is downhill and Europe is beset with economic problems. A new war will make it worse. Also, Pakistan has now built alliances with Afghanistan, Iran and China, so that neither Pakistan nor Iran is isolated as a target for the attack. 
 
It is no longer easy for the Neo-cons-Israel-India evil axis to implement their conspiracies of Balkanization. In Bangladesh we will defeat them through the movement of the people, while keeping good relations with countries and parties which are favourable to our independence-sovereignty and national development. 
 

Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 17:24:31 +0600
Subject: Imperial Eye on Pakistan
From: bdmailer@gmail.com
To:

Imperial Eye on Pakistan

by Andrew Gavin Marshall

http://www.opinion-maker.org/2012/03/andrew-gavin-marshall-imperial-eye-on-pakistan/#

Introduction

As the purported assassination of Osama bin Laden has placed the focus on Pakistan, it is vital to assess the changing role of Pakistan in broad geostrategic terms, and in particular, of the changing American strategy toward Pakistan. The recently reported assassination was a propaganda ploy aimed at targeting Pakistan. To understand this, it is necessary to examine how America has, in recent years, altered its strategy in Pakistan in the direction of destabilization. In short, Pakistan is an American target. The reason: Pakistan's growing military and strategic ties to China, America's primary global strategic rival. In the 'Great Game' for global hegemony, any country that impedes America's world primacy – even one as historically significant to America as Pakistan – may be sacrificed upon the altar of war.

Part 1 of 'Pakistan in Pieces' examines the changing views of the American strategic community – particularly the military and intelligence circles – towards Pakistan. In particular, there is a general acknowledgement that Pakistan will very likely continue to be destabilized and ultimately collapse. What is not mentioned in these assessments, however, is the role of the military and intelligence communities in making this a reality; a veritable self-fulfilling prophecy. This part also examines the active on the ground changes in American strategy in Pakistan, with increasing military incursions into the country.

Imperial Eye on Pakistan

In December of 2000, the CIA released a report of global trends to the year 2015, which stated that by 2015, "Pakistan will be more fractious, isolated, and dependent on international financial assistance."[1] Further, it was predicted, Pakistan:

Will not recover easily from decades of political and economic mismanagement, divisive politics, lawlessness, corruption and ethnic friction. Nascent democratic reforms will produce little change in the face of opposition from an entrenched political elite and radical Islamic parties. Further domestic decline would benefit Islamic political activists, who may significantly increase their role in national politics and alter the makeup and cohesion of the military – once Pakistan's most capable institution. In a climate of continuing domestic turmoil, the central government's control probably will be reduced to the Punjabi heartland and the economic hub of Karachi.[2]

The report further analyzed the trends developing in relation to the Pakistan-India standoff in the region:

The threat of major conflict between India and Pakistan will overshadow all other regional issues during the next 15 years. Continued turmoil in Afghanistan and Pakistan will spill over into Kashmir and other areas of the subcontinent, prompting Indian leaders to take more aggressive preemptive and retaliatory actions. India's conventional military advantage over Pakistan will widen as a result of New Delhi's superior economic position.[3]

In 2005, the Times of India reported on a US National Intelligence Council report, written in conjunction with the CIA, which predicted a "Yugoslavia-like fate" for Pakistan, saying that, "by year 2015 Pakistan would be a failed state, ripe with civil war, bloodshed, inter-provincial rivalries and a struggle for control of its nuclear weapons and complete Talibanisation."[4]

In November of 2008, the US National Intelligence Council released a report, "Global Trends 2025," in which they outlined major trends in the world by the year 2025. When it came to Pakistan, the report stated that, "Ongoing low-intensity clashes between India and Pakistan continue to raise the specter that such events could escalate to a broader conflict between those nuclear powers."[5] It stated that Pakistan "will be at risk of state failure."[6] In examining potential failed states, the report stated that:

[Y]outh bulges, deeply rooted conflicts, and limited economic prospects are likely to keep Palestine, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and others in the high-risk category.  Spillover from turmoil in these states and potentially others increases the chance that moves elsewhere in the region toward greater prosperity and political stability will be rocky.[7]

The report referred to Pakistan as a "wildcard" and stated that if it is "unable to hold together until 2025, a broader coalescence of Pashtun tribes is likely to emerge and act together to erase the Durand Line [separating Pakistan from Afghanistan], maximizing Pashtun space at the expense of Punjabis in Pakistan and Tajiks and others in Afghanistan."[8]

In January of 2009, a Pentagon report analyzing geopolitical trends of significance to the US military over the next 25 years, reported that Pakistan could face a "rapid and sudden" collapse. It stated that, "Some forms of collapse in Pakistan would carry with it the likelihood of a sustained violent and bloody civil and sectarian war, an even bigger haven for violent extremists, and the question of what would happen to its nuclear weapons," and as such, "that 'perfect storm' of uncertainty alone might require the engagement of U.S. and coalition forces into a situation of immense complexity and danger."[9]

A top adviser to former President George Bush and current President Obama warned in April of 2009, that Pakistan could collapse within months, and that, "We have to face the fact that if Pakistan collapses it will dwarf anything we have seen so far in whatever we're calling the war on terror now." The adviser and consultant, David Kilcullen, explained that this would be unlike the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, which each had a population of over 30 million, whereas "Pakistan has [187] million people and 100 nuclear weapons, an army which is bigger than the American army, and the headquarters of al-Qaeda sitting in two-thirds of the country which the Government does not control."[10]

Target: Pakistan

Going back to the later years of the Bush administration, it is apparent that the US strategy in Pakistan was already changing in seeing it increasingly as a target for military operations as opposed to simply a conduit. In August of 2007, newly uncovered documents revealed that the US military "gave elite units broad authority" in 2004, "to pursue suspected terrorists into Pakistan, with no mention of telling the Pakistanis in advance."[11]

In November of 2007, an op-ed in the New York Times stated categorically that, "the United States simply could not stand by as a nuclear-armed Pakistan descended into the abyss," and that, "we need to think — now — about our feasible military options in Pakistan, should it really come to that." The authors, Frederick Kagan and Michael O'Hanlon are both well-known strategists and scholars at the American Enterprise Institute and Brookings Institution, two of the most prominent and influential think tanks in the United States. While stating that Pakistan's leaders are still primarily moderate and friendly to the US, "Americans felt similarly about the shah's regime in Iran until it was too late," referring to the outbreak of the Iranian Revolution in 1979. They warn:

The most likely possible dangers are these: a complete collapse of Pakistani government rule that allows an extreme Islamist movement to fill the vacuum; a total loss of federal control over outlying provinces, which splinter along ethnic and tribal lines; or a struggle within the Pakistani military in which the minority sympathetic to the Taliban and Al Qaeda try to establish Pakistan as a state sponsor of terrorism.[12]

They state that the military solutions are "daunting" as Pakistan is a nation of 187 million people, roughly five times the size of Iraq. They wrote that, "estimates suggest that a force of more than a million troops would be required for a country of this size," which led them to conclude, "Thus, if we have any hope of success, we would have to act before a complete government collapse, and we would need the cooperation of moderate Pakistani forces." They suggested one plan would be to deploy Special Forces "with the limited goal of preventing Pakistan's nuclear materials and warheads from getting into the wrong hand." However, they admit that, "even pro-American Pakistanis would be unlikely to cooperate." Another option, they contend:

would involve supporting the core of the Pakistani armed forces as they sought to hold the country together in the face of an ineffective government, seceding border regions and Al Qaeda and Taliban assassination attempts against the leadership. This would require a sizable combat force — not only from the United States, but ideally also other Western powers and moderate Muslim nations.[13]

The authors concluded, saying that any state decline in Pakistan would likely be gradual, therefore allowing the US to have time to respond, and placed an emphasis on securing Pakistan's nuclear arsenal and combating militants. They finished the article with the warning: "Pakistan may be the next big test."[14]

In December of 2007, the Asia Times Online ran a story about the US plan to rid Pakistan of President Musharraf, and that the US and the West, more broadly, had begun a strategy aimed at toppling Pakistan's military. As part of this, the US launched a media campaign aimed at demonizing Pakistan's military establishment. At this time, Benazir Bhutto was criticizing the ISI, suggesting they needed a dramatic restructuring, and at the same time, reports were appearing in the US media blaming the ISI for funding and providing assistance to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. While much of this is documented, the fact that it suddenly emerged as talking points with several western officials and in the media does suggest a turn-around against a long-time ally.[15]

Both Democratic and Republican politicians were making statements that Pakistan represented a greater threat than Iran, and then-Senator (now Vice President) Joseph Biden suggested that the United States needed to put soldiers on the ground in Pakistan in cooperation with the "international community." Biden said that, "We should be in there," and "we should be supplying tens of millions of dollars to build new schools to compete with the madrassas. We should be in there building democratic institutions. We should be in there, and get the rest of the world in there, giving some structure to the emergence of, hopefully, the reemergence of a democratic process."[16]

In American policy-strategy circles, officials openly began discussing the possibility of Pakistan breaking up into smaller states, and increasing discussion that Musharraf was going to be "removed," which obviously happened. As the Asia Times stated:

Another worrying thing is how US officials are publicly signaling to the Pakistanis that Bhutto has their backing as the next leader of the country. Such signals from Washington are not only a kiss of death for any public leader in Pakistan, but the Americans also know that their actions are inviting potential assassins to target Bhutto.

If she is killed in this way, there won't be enough time to find the real culprit, but what's certain is that unprecedented international pressure will be placed on Islamabad while everyone will use their local assets to create maximum internal chaos in the country.[17]

Of course, this subsequently happened in Pakistan. As the author of the article pointed out with startlingly accurate foresight, "Getting Bhutto killed can generate the kind of pressure that could result in permanently putting the Pakistani military on a back foot, giving Washington enough room to push for installing a new pliant leadership in Islamabad." He observed that, "the US is very serious this time. They cannot let Pakistan get out of their hands."[18]

Thus, it would appear that the new US strategic aim in Pakistan was focused on removing the Pakistani military from power, implying the need to replace Musharraf, and replace him with a new, compliant civilian leadership. This would have the effect of fracturing the Pakistani elite, threatening the Army's influence within Pakistani politics, and undertaking more direct control of Pakistan's government.

As if on cue, in late December it was reported that, "US special forces snatch squads are on standby to seize or disable Pakistan's nuclear arsenal in the event of a collapse of government authority or the outbreak of civil war following the assassination of Benazir Bhutto."[19]

The New York Times ran an article in early January 2008, which reported that, "President Bush's senior national security advisers are debating whether to expand the authority of the Central Intelligence Agency and the military to conduct far more aggressive covert operations in the tribal areas of Pakistan." The article stated that the new strategy was purportedly in response to increased reports of Al-Qaeda and Taliban activity within Pakistan, which "are intensifying efforts there to destabilize the Pakistani government." Bush's National Security team supposedly organized this effort in response to Bhutto's assassination 10 days previously.[20]

Officials involved in the strategy discussions said that some "options would probably involve the C.I.A. working with the military's Special Operations forces," and one official said, "After years of focusing on Afghanistan, we think the extremists now see a chance for the big prize — creating chaos in Pakistan itself." Of pivotal importance to the strategy, as the Times reported: "Critics said more direct American military action would be ineffective, anger the Pakistani Army and increase support for the militants."[21] Perhaps this is not simply a "side-effect" of the proposed strategy, but in fact, part of the strategy.

As one prominent Pakistani political and military analyst pointed out, raids into Pakistan would expand anger and "prompt a powerful popular backlash" against the Pakistani government, losing popular support.[22] However, as I previously stated, this might be the intention, as this would ultimately make the government more dependent upon the United States, and thus, more subservient.

On September 3, 2008, it was reported that a commando raid by US Special Forces was launched in Pakistan, which killed between 15 and 20 people, including women and children. The Special Forces were accompanied by five U.S. helicopters for the duration of the operation.[23]

In February of 2009, it was reported that, "More than 70 United States military advisers and technical specialists are secretly working in Pakistan to help its armed forces battle Al Qaeda and the Taliban in the country's lawless tribal areas." So not only are U.S. Special Forces invading Pakistani territory; but now US military advisers are secretly advising the Pakistani Army on its own operations, and the advisers are themselves primary made up of Special Forces soldiers. They provide the Pakistani Army "with intelligence and advising on combat tactics," and make up a secret command run by US Central Command and Special Operations Command (presumably JSOC – Joint Special Operations Command).[24]

In May of 2009, it was reported that, "the U.S. is sending Special Forces teams into one of Pakistan's most violent regions as part of a push to accelerate the training of the Pakistani military and make it a more effective ally in the fight against insurgents there." The Special Forces were deploying to two training camps in the province of Baluchistan, and "will focus on training Pakistan's Frontier Corps, a paramilitary force responsible for battling the Taliban and al Qaeda fighters." Further, the project "is a joint effort with the U.K.," which helps "fund the training, although it is unclear if British military personnel would take part in the initiative. British officials have been pushing for such an effort for several years."[25]

In December of 2009 it was revealed that, "American special forces have conducted multiple clandestine raids into Pakistan's tribal areas as part of a secret war in the border region where Washington is pressing to expand its drone assassination programme," which was revealed by a former NATO officer. He said these incursions had occurred between 2003 and 2008, indicating they go even further back than US military documents stipulate. The source further revealed that, "the Pakistanis were kept entirely in the dark about it. It was one of those things we wouldn't confirm officially with them." Further, as the source noted, British "SAS soldiers have been active in the province" of Bolochistan in 2002 and 2003 and "possibly beyond."[26]

The "Balkanization" of Pakistan: Blaming the Pakistanis

Selig S. Harrison is a director of the Asia Program at the Center for International Policy, senior scholar of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, former senior associate of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and former journalist and correspondent. "His reputation for giving 'early warning' of foreign policy crises was well established during his career as a foreign correspondent.  In his study of foreign reporting, Between Two Worlds, John Hohenberg, former secretary of the Pulitzer Prize Board, cited Harrison's prediction of the 1965 Indo-Pakistan war eighteen months before it happened." Further, "More than a year before the Russians invaded Afghanistan, Harrison warned of this possibility in one of his frequent contributions to the influential journal Foreign Policy."[27]

On February 1, 2008, Selig Harrison threw his renowned "predictive" abilities on Pakistan in an op-ed for the New York Times in the run-up to the Pakistani elections. He started by stating that, "Whatever the outcome of the Pakistani elections, now scheduled for Feb. 18, the existing multiethnic Pakistani state is not likely to survive for long unless it is radically restructured." Harrison then went on to explain that Pakistan would likely break up along ethnic lines; with the Pashtuns, concentrated in the northwestern tribal areas, the Sindhis in the southeast uniting with the Baluch tribesmen in the southwest, with the Punjab "rump state" of Pakistan.[28]

The Pashtuns in the north, "would join with their ethnic brethren across the Afghan border (some 40 million of them combined) to form an independent 'Pashtunistan'," and the Sindhis "numbering 23 million, would unite with the six million Baluch tribesmen in the southwest to establish a federation along the Arabian Sea from India to Iran," presumably named Baluchistan; while the rump state of Pakistan would remain Punjabi dominated and in control of the nuclear weapons. Selig Harrison explained that prior to partition from India, which led to the creation of the Pakistani state in 1947, Pashtun, Sindhi and Baluch ethnicities had "resist[ed] Punjabi domination for centuries," and suddenly:

they found themselves subjected to Punjabi-dominated military regimes that have appropriated many of the natural resources in the minority provinces — particularly the natural gas deposits in the Baluch areas — and siphoned off much of the Indus River's waters as they flow through the Punjab.

The resulting Punjabi-Pashtun animosity helps explain why the United States is failing to get effective Pakistani cooperation in fighting terrorists. The Pashtuns living along the Afghan border are happy to give sanctuary from Punjabi forces to the Taliban, which is composed primarily of fellow Pashtuns, and to its Qaeda friends.

Pashtun civilian casualties resulting from Pakistani and American air strikes on both sides of the border are breeding a potent underground Pashtun nationalist movement. Its initial objective is to unite all Pashtuns in Pakistan, now divided among political jurisdictions, into a unified province. In time, however, its leaders envisage full nationhood.

… The Baluch people, for their part, have been waging intermittent insurgencies since their forced incorporation into Pakistan in 1947. In the current warfare Pakistani forces are widely reported to be deploying American-supplied aircraft and intelligence equipment that was intended for use in Afghan border areas. Their victims are forging military links with Sindhi nationalist groups that have been galvanized into action by the death of Benazir Bhutto, a Sindhi hero as was her father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.[29]

This passage is very revealing of the processes and perceptions surrounding "Balkanization" and "destabilization." What I mean by this, is that historically and presently, imperial powers would often use ethnic groups against each other in a strategy of divide and conquer, in order "to keep the barbarians from coming together" and dominate the region.

Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote in his 1997 book, "The Grand Chessboard," that, "Geopolitics has moved from the regional to the global dimension, with preponderance over the entire Eurasian continent serving as the central basis for global primacy."[30] Brzezinski then gave a masterful explanation of the American global strategy, which placed it into a firm imperialistic context:

To put it in a terminology that hearkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together.[31]

While imperial powers manipulate, and historically, even create the ethnic groups within regions and nations, the West portrays conflict in such regions as being the product of these "ethnic" or "tribal" rivalries. This perception of the East (Asia and the Middle East) as well as Africa is referred to as Orientalism or Eurocentrism: meaning it generally portrays the East (and/or Africa) as "the Other": inherently different and often barbaric. This prejudiced perspective is prevalent in Western academic, media, and policy circles. This perspective serves a major purpose: dehumanizing a people in a region that an imperial power seeks to dominate, which allows the hegemon to manipulate the people and divide them against each other, while framing them as "backwards" and "barbaric," which in turn, justifies the Western imperial power exerting hegemony and control over the region; to "protect" the people from themselves.

Historically and presently, Western empires have divided people against each other, blamed the resulting conflict on the people themselves, and thus justified their control over both the people, and the region they occupy. This was the strategy employed in major recent geopolitical conflicts such as the breakup of Yugoslavia and the Rwandan genocide. In both cases, Western imperial ambitions were met through exacerbating ethnic rivalries, providing financial, technical, and military aid and training to various factions; thus, spreading violent conflict, war, and genocide. In both cases, Western, and primarily American strategic interests were met through an increased presence militarily, pushing out other major imperial and powerful rivals, as well as increasing Western access to key economics resources.

This is the lens through which we must view the unfolding situation in Pakistan. However, the situation in Pakistan presents a far greater potential for conflict and devastation than either Yugoslavia or Rwanda. In short, the potential strategy of "Balkanization" and destabilization of Pakistan could dwarf any major global conflict in the past few decades. It's sheer population of 187 million people, proximity to two major regional wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, its strategic location as neighbor to India, China, and Iran with access to the Indian Ocean, and its nuclear arsenal, combine to make Pakistan the potential trigger for a much wider regional and possibly global war. The destabilization of Pakistan has the potential to be the greatest geopolitical catastrophe since World War II.

Thus, Selig Harrison's op-ed in the New York Times in which he describes the "likely" breakup of Pakistan along ethnic lines as a result of "ethnic differences" must be viewed in the wider context of geopolitical ambitions. His article lays the foundation both for the explanation of a potential breakup, and thus the "justification" for Western intervention in the conflict. His "predictive" capacities as a seasoned journalist can be alternatively viewed as pre-emptive imperial propaganda.

Fracturing Pakistan

The war in Afghanistan is inherently related to the situation in Pakistan. From the days of the Afghan-Soviet war in the 1980s, arms and money were flowing through Pakistan to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. During the civil war that followed, Pakistan armed and financed the Taliban, which eventually took power. When the U.S. and NATO initially attacked Afghanistan on October 7, 2001, this was primarily achieved through cooperation with Pakistan. When the war theatre was re-named "AfPak," the role of Pakistan, however, was formally altered. While the previous few years had seen the implementation of a strategy of destabilizing Pakistan, once the "AfPak" war theatre was established, Pakistan ceased to be as much of a conduit or proxy state and became a target.

In September of 2008, the editor of Indian Defence Review wrote an article explaining that a stable Pakistan is not in India's interests: "With Pakistan on the brink of collapse due to massive internal as well as international contradictions, it is matter of time before it ceases to exist." He explained that Pakistan's collapse would bring "multiple benefits" to India, including preventing China from gaining a major port in the Indian Ocean, which is in the mutual interest of the United States. The author explained that this would be a "severe jolt" to China's expansionist aims, and further, "India's access to Central Asian energy routes will open up."[32]

In August of 2009, Foreign Policy Journal published a report of an exclusive interview they held with former Pakistani ISI chief Lieutenant General Hamid Gul, who was Director General of the powerful intelligence services (ISI) between 1987 and 1989, at a time in which it was working closely with the CIA to fund and arm the Mujahideen. Once a close ally of the US, he is now considered extremely controversial and the US even recommended the UN to put him on the international terrorist list. Gul explained that he felt that the American people have not been told the truth about 9/11, and that the 9/11 Commission was a "cover up," pointing out that, "They [the American government] haven't even proved the case that 9/11 was done by Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda." He said that the real reasons for the war on Afghanistan were that:

the U.S. wanted to "reach out to the Central Asian oilfields" and "open the door there", which "was a requirement of corporate America, because the Taliban had not complied with their desire to allow an oil and gas pipeline to pass through Afghanistan. UNOCAL is a case in point. They wanted to keep the Chinese out. They wanted to give a wider security shield to the state of Israel, and they wanted to include this region into that shield. And that's why they were talking at that time very hotly about 'greater Middle East'. They were redrawing the map."[33]

He also stated that part of the reason for going into Afghanistan was "to go for Pakistan's nuclear capability," as the U.S. "signed this strategic deal with India, and this was brokered by Israel. So there is a nexus now between Washington, Tel Aviv, and New Delhi." When he was asked about the Pakistani Taliban, which the Pakistani government was being pressured to fight, and where the financing for that group came from; Gul stated:

Yeah, of course they are getting it from across the Durand line, from Afghanistan. And the Mossad is sitting there, RAW is sitting there — the Indian intelligence agency — they have the umbrella of the U.S. And now they have created another organization which is called RAMA. It may be news to you that very soon this intelligence agency — of course, they have decided to keep it covert — but it is Research and Analysis Milli Afghanistan. That's the name. The Indians have helped create this organization, and its job is mainly to destabilize Pakistan.[34]

He explained that the Chief of Staff of the Afghan Army had told him that he had gone to India to offer the Indians five bases in Afghanistan, three of which are along the Pakistani border. Gul was asked a question as to why, if the West was supporting the TTP (Pakistani Taliban), would a CIA drone have killed the leader of the TTP. Gul explained that while Pakistan was fighting directly against the TTP leader, Baitullah Mehsud, the Pakistani government would provide the Americans where Mehsud was, "three times the Pakistan intelligence tipped off America, but they did not attack him." So why all of a sudden did they attack?

Because there were some secret talks going on between Baitullah Mehsud and the Pakistani military establishment. They wanted to reach a peace agreement, and if you recall there is a long history of our tribal areas, whenever a tribal militant has reached a peace agreement with the government of Pakistan, Americans have without any hesitation struck that target.

… there was some kind of a deal which was about to be arrived at — they may have already cut a deal. I don't know. I don't have enough information on that. But this is my hunch, that Baitullah was killed because now he was trying to reach an agreement with the Pakistan army. And that's why there were no suicide attacks inside Pakistan for the past six or seven months.[35]

An article in one of Canada's national magazines, Macleans, reported on an interview with a Pakistani ISI spy, who claimed that India's intelligence services, Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), have "tens of thousands of RAW agents in Pakistan." Many officials inside Pakistan were convinced that, "India's endgame is nothing less than the breakup of Pakistan. And the RAW is no novice in that area. In the 1960s, it was actively involved in supporting separatists in Bangladesh, at the time East Pakistan. The eventual victory of Bangladeshi nationalism in 1971 was in large part credited to the support the RAW gave the secessionists."[36] 

Further, there were Indian consulates set up in Kandahar, the area of Afghanistan where Canadian troops are located, and which is strategically located next to the Pakistani province of Baluchistan, which is home to a virulent separatist movement, of which Pakistan claims is being supported by India. Macleans reported on the conclusions by Michel Chossudovsky, economics professor at University of Ottawa, that, "the region's massive gas and oil reserves are of strategic interest to the U.S. and India. A gas pipeline slated to be built from Iran to India, two countries that already enjoy close ties, would run through Baluchistan. The Baluch separatist movement, which is also active in Iran, offers an ideal proxy for both the U.S. and India to ensure their interests are met."[37]

Even an Afghan government adviser told the media that India was using Afghan territory to destabilize Pakistan.[38] In September of 2009, the Pakistan Daily reported that captured members and leaders of the Pakistani Taliban have admitted to being trained and armed by India through RAW or RAMA in Afghanistan in order to fight the Pakistani Army.[39]

Foreign Policy magazine in February of 2009 quoted a former intelligence official as saying, "The Indians are up to their necks in supporting the Taliban against the Pakistani government in Afghanistan and Pakistan," and that, "the same anti-Pakistani forces in Afghanistan also shooting at American soldiers are getting support from India. India should close its diplomatic establishments in Afghanistan and get the Christ out of there."[40]

The Council on Foreign Relations published a backgrounder report on RAW, India's intelligence agency, founded in 1968 "primarily to counter China's influence, [however] over time it has shifted its focus to India's other traditional rival, Pakistan." For over three decades both Indian and Pakistani intelligence agencies have been involved in covert operations against one another. One of RAW's main successes was its covert operations in East Pakistan, now known as Bangladesh, which "aimed at fomenting independence sentiment" and ultimately led to the separation of Bangladesh by directly funding, arming and training the Pakistani separatists. Further, as the Council on Foreign Relations noted, "From the early days, RAW had a secret liaison relationship with the Mossad, Israel's external intelligence agency."[41]

Since RAW was founded in 1968, it had developed close ties with the Afghan intelligence agency, KHAD, primarily to do with intelligence sharing on Pakistan. In the 1980s, while Pakistan was funding, arming and training the Afghan Mujahideen with the support of Saudi Arabia and the CIA, India was funding two covert groups which orchestrated terrorist attacks inside Pakistan, which included a "low-grade but steady campaign of bombings in major Pakistani cities, notably Karachi and Lahore." RAW has also had a close relationship with the CIA, as even six years before RAW was created, in 1962, the CIA created a covert organization made up of Tibetan refugees, which aimed to "execute deep-penetration terror operations in China." The CIA subsequently played a part in the creation of RAW. In the 1980s, while the CIA was working closely with the ISI in Pakistan, RAW, while wary of their relationship, continued to get counterterrorism training from the CIA.[42]

In October of 2009, the New York Times reported that the US strategy "to vastly expand its aid to Pakistan, as well as the footprint of its embassy and private security contractors here, are aggravating an already volatile anti-American mood as Washington pushes for greater action by the government against the Taliban." The U.S. gave Pakistan an aid deal of $1.5 billion per year for the next five years, under the stipulation of "Pakistan to cease supporting terrorist groups on its soil and to ensure that the military does not interfere with civilian politics." President Zaradari accepted the proposal, making him even more unpopular in Pakistan, and further angering Pakistan's powerful military, which sees the deal as interfering in the internal affairs of the country.[43]

America is thus expanding its embassy and security presence within the country, as the Embassy "has publicized plans for a vast new building in Islamabad for about 1,000 people, with security for some diplomats provided through a Washington-based private contracting company, DynCorp." The NYT article referred to how relations were becoming increasingly strained between Pakistan and the US, and tensions were growing within the country exponentially, as "the American presence was fueling a sense of occupation among Pakistani politicians and security officials," and several Pakistani officials stated that, "the United States was now seen as behaving in Pakistan much as it did in Iraq and Afghanistan." Futher:

In particular, the Pakistani military and the intelligence agencies are concerned that DynCorp is being used by Washington to develop a parallel network of security and intelligence personnel within Pakistan, officials and politicians close to the army said.

The concerns are serious enough that last month a local company hired by DynCorp to provide Pakistani men to be trained as security guards for American diplomats was raided by the Islamabad police. The owner of the company, the Inter-Risk Security Company, Capt. Syed Ali Ja Zaidi, was later arrested.

The action against Inter-Risk, apparently intended to cripple the DynCorp program, was taken on orders from the senior levels of the Pakistani government, said an official familiar with the raid, who was not authorized to speak on the record.

The entire workings of DynCorp within Pakistan are now under review by the Pakistani government.[44]

As revealed in the Wikileaks diplomatic cables, U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan Anne Patterson wrote in September of 2009 that the U.S. strategy of unilateral strikes inside Pakistan "risk destabilizing the Pakistani state, alienating both the civilian government and military leadership, and provoking a broader governance crisis in Pakistan without finally achieving the goal."[45]

In an interview with Press TV, Hamid Gul, former Inter-Services Intelligence chief revealed more of what he sees as the US strategy in Pakistan. He explained that with the massive expansion of the U.S. Embassy in Pakistan, and alongside that, the increased security staff, the Chinese are becoming increasingly concerned with the sovereignty and security of Pakistan. He claimed that the money that the US government offered (with heavy conditions) to Pakistan, $1.5 billion every year for five years, will be spent under the direction of the Americans, and that "they are going to set up a large intelligence network inside Pakistan," and ultimately "they really want to go for Pakistan's nuclear assets." He further claimed that the Indians are trying to destabilize Pakistan; however, he explained, this does not necessarily mean disintegrate, but rather:

they are trying to destabilize Pakistan at the moment so that it feels weak and economically has to go begging on its knees to Americans and ask for succor and help. And in that process they will want to expect certain concessions with regards to nuclear power and also with regards to setting up their facilities here in Pakistan.[46]

When he was asked what America's long-term goal was in regards to Pakistan, Gul responded that the goal:

for America is that they want to keep Pakistan destabilized; perhaps create a way for Baluchistan as a separate state and then create problems for Iran so that this new state will talk about greater Baluchistan… So it appears that the long-term objectives are really to fragment all these countries to an extent that they can establish a strip that would be pro-America, pro-India, pro-Israel. So this seems to be their long-term objective apart from denuclearizing Pakistan and blocking Iran's progress in the nuclear field.[47]

In Part 2 of 'Pakistan in Pieces', I will examine the specific ways in which the American strategy of destabilization is being undertaken in Pakistan, including the waging of a secret war and the expansion of the Afghan war into Pakistani territory. In short, the military and intelligence projections for Pakistan over the next several years (discussed in the beginning of Part 1 above) are a self-fulfilling prophecy, as those very same military and intelligence agencies that predict a destabilized Pakistan and potential collapse are now undertaking strategies aimed at achieving those outcomes.

Notes

[1]      NIC, Global Trends 2015: A Dialogue About the Future With Nongovernment Experts. The Central Intelligence Agency: December 2000: page 64

http://www.dni.gov/nic/NIC_globaltrend2015.html

[2]           Ibid, page 66.

[3]           Ibid.

[4]      PTI, Pak will be failed state by 2015: CIA. The Times of India: February 13, 2005: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/Pak-will-be-failed-state-by-2015-CIA/articleshow/1019516.cms

[5]      NIC, Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World. The National Intelligence Council: November 2008: page x

http://www.dni.gov/nic/NIC_2025_project.html

[6]           Ibid, page 45.

[7]           Ibid, page 65.

[8]           Ibid, page 72.

[9]      Peter Goodspeed, Mexico, Pakistan face 'rapid and sudden' collapse: Pentagon. The National Post: January 15, 2009: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/story.html?id=1181621

[10]    PAUL MCGEOUGH, Warning that Pakistan is in danger of collapse within months. The Sydney Morning Herald: April 13, 2009: http://www.smh.com.au/world/warning-that-pakistan-is-in-danger-of-collapse-within-months-20090412-a40u.html

[11]    Scott Lindlaw, AP: U.S. gave troops OK to enter Pakistan. USA Today: August 23, 2007: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-08-23-pakistan-engagement_N.htm

[12]    Frederick Kagan and Michael O'Hanlon, Pakistan's Collapse, Our Problem. November 18, 2007: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/opinion/18kagan.html

[13]         Ibid.

[14]         Ibid.

[15]    Ahmed Quraishi, The plan to topple Pakistan's military. Asia Times Online: December 6, 2007: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IL06Df03.html

[16]         Ibid.

[17]         Ibid.

[18]         Ibid.

[19]    Ian Bruce, Special forces on standby over nuclear threat. The Sunday Herald: December 31, 2007: http://www.heraldscotland.com/special-forces-on-standby-over-nuclear-threat-1.871766

[20]    Steven Lee Myers, David E. Sanger and Eric Schmitt, U.S. Considers New Covert Push Within Pakistan. The New York Times: January 6, 2008: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/washington/06terror.html

[21]         Ibid.

[22]         Ibid.

[23]    Farhan Bokhari, Sami Yousafzai, and Tucker Reals, U.S. Special Forces Strike In Pakistan. CBS News: September 3, 2008: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/03/terror/main4409288.shtml

[24]    Eric Schmitt and Jane Perlez, U.S. Unit Secretly in Pakistan Lends Ally Support. The New York Times: February 22, 2009: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/23/world/asia/23terror.html

[25]    YOCHI J. DREAZEN and SIOBHAN GORMAN, U.S. Special Forces Sent to Train Pakistanis. The Wall Street Journal: May 16, 2009: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124241541672724767.html

[26]    Declan Walsh, US forces mounted secret Pakistan raids in hunt for al-Qaida. The Guardian: December 21, 2009: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/21/us-forces-secret-pakistan-raids

[27]    CIP, SELIG S. HARRISON. Center for International Policy: http://www.ciponline.org/asia/Seligbio.html

[28]    Selig S. Harriosn, Drawn and Quartered. The New York Times: February 1, 2008: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/opinion/01harrison.html

[29]         Ibid.

[30]    Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives. (New York: Perseus, 1997), page 39

[31]         Ibid, page 40.

[32]    Bharat Verma, Stable Pakistan not in India's interest. Indian Defence Review: September 11, 2008: http://www.indiandefencereview.com/2008/09/stable-pakistan-not-in-indias-interest.html

[33]    Jeremy R. Hammond, Ex-ISI Chief Says Purpose of New Afghan Intelligence Agency RAMA Is 'to destabilize Pakistan'. Foreign Policy Journal: August 12, 2009: http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2009/08/12/ex-isi-chief-says-purpose-of-new-afghan-intelligence-agency-rama-is-%E2%80%98to-destabilize-pakistan%E2%80%99/

[34]         Ibid.

[35]         Ibid.

[36]    Adnan R. Khan, New Delhi's endgame? Macleans: August 23, 2009: http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/04/23/new-delhi%E2%80%99s-endgame/

[37]         Ibid. See also Michel Chossudovsky, The Destabilization of Pakistan, Global Research, December 30, 2007

[38]    Imtiaz Indher, Afgan MPs call for early withdrawal of foreign troop. Associated Press of Pakistan: April 1, 2009: http://www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=72423&Itemid=2

[39]    Moin Ansari, Proof: Captured TTP terrorists admit to being Indian RAW agents. Pakistan Daily: September 20, 2009: http://www.daily.pk/proof-captured-ttp-terrorists-admit-to-being-indian-raw-agents-11015/

[40]    Laura Rozen, Can the intel community defuse India-Pakistan tensions? Foreign Policy: February 16, 2009:
 http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/02/16/can_the_intel_community_defuse_india_pakistan_tensions

[41]    Jayshree Bajoria, RAW: India's External Intelligence Agency. The Council on Foreign Relations: November 7, 2008: http://www.cfr.org/publication/17707/

[42]         Ibid.

[43]    Jane Perlez, U.S. Push to Expand in Pakistan Meets Resistance. The New York Times: October 5, 2009: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/world/asia/06islamabad.html

[44]         Ibid.

[45]         US embassy cables, Reviewing our Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy, The Guardian, 30 November 2010: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/226531

[46]    US military bases 'will destabilize Pakistan'. Press TV: September 13, 2009: http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=106106&sectionid=3510302

[47]         Ibid.

http://www.opinion-maker.org/2012/03/andrew-gavin-marshall-imperial-eye-on-pakistan/#




__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Re: ISI paid Rs50 million to Khalida Zia to help her in polls against Hasina Wajid



Ex-ISI boss admits funding BNP

Former ISI chief Asad Durrani made the admission during a Pakistan Supreme Court hearing

Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) has admitted to meddling in India's Northeast and funding the right-wing Bangladesh National Party (BNP) during the 1991 general elections in that country.

The admission came from no less than former ISI chief Asad Durrani during a Pakistan Supreme Court hearing on the spy agency's mandate on Wednesday.

A three-member bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhary grilled the former spy agency chief on ISI's funding for politicians both within and outside Pakistan.

Recently a UAE-based daily had alleged that ISI paid Rs 50 crore to BNP chairperson and former PM Khaleda Zia ahead of the 1991 elections in which the BNP won and formed the government.

There are allegations that the ISI has been active in Bangladesh whenever the BNP has been in power (1991-96) and later during 2001-06.

The spy agency was also alleged to have launched a campaign from Bangladesh to destabilise the Northeast by patronising and providing logistic support, including funds, to the insurgent groups operating from Bangladesh.

The ISI is alleged to have supported a network in Bangladesh, which includes the hardline Jamaat-e-Islami (JEI), the BNP and Northeast rebel groups during the BNP's rule.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-2115584/Pakistan-ISI-admits-supporting-insurgency-Indias-Northeast.html?ito=feeds-newsxml




__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

Re: [mukto-mona] Burqa banning after RAJUK, now Syedpur's Lions school and college: Minority Islam in Muslim majority Bangladesh



1. Nrisinhaprasad Bhaduri, an authority on Indian epics, should be more reliable than Nirad C. Chowdhury with regard to time line.
2. Marhaba. You have smelled grammatical mistakes in RN's writings. The circle is now full: Bankim, Vivekananda, RN reduced to nothing.
3. To me Einstein is also a modern sage. I am not surprised that RN called Muhammad a Maharishi. 


Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 16, 2012, at 12:02 PM, Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com> wrote:


 

1.Vyas Deva is a person of seventh century of the common era according to the Encarta Encyclopaedia.  Hinduism may not really be as old as some think.  One should read Nirad Chaudhury to get an idea.  According to him, no Hindu scripture is older than sixth century C. E. 

2.  Muhammad may be a total myth as proposed by Prof. Kallisch of  Islamic studies at a German University.  He might have been called a 'Maharishi' by Rabindranath Tagore.  He also compared Islam and Christianity with Bolshevism due to their intolerance to other faiths.  Even he would be amused, had he been alive, to learn that someone considers him an authority on Islam(more than Imam Bukhari!).  'No evidence has been cited to prove him faltu'???  Such statements prove that he is ignorant of Tagore as well.  After he earned a Nobel, Calcutta University usually picked his compositions to quote in question papers and asked students to discuss grammatical and spelling mistakes.

An ignoramus of Mr. Chakrabarty's level should stay off from blogging.

3. If we have to judge people on the ability to change the world, the modern scientists are way ahead of those preachers of religions who brought about dark age and perpetrated atrocities on those who disagreed with them.  Read Voltaire to get a flavor of what I mean.

3. The way 'Maharshi Muhammad' slaughtered the people who gave them shelter in Madina, he should be compared with Macbeth instead.

4. I am sick of discussing serious matters with these 'wise' men as Chakrabarty and Rahman.  I would appreciate if these men ignore my postings.  In any case, I would do it henceforth to whatever they post here.

On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 5:37 AM, Subimal Chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com> wrote:
 

1. I am not alone. There are more as I have mentioned before. Read (don't have to agree) analytical posts of Bain, Roy, Q. Rahman, and some others. 
2. Ranindranath is lucky! No evidence has been cited to prove him to be 'faltu' even though he called Muhmed a Maharishi! 
3. Was RN not aware of Islamic history? Definitely he was. Was he wrong? My analysis is given below:
RN knew well about ancient sages. He knew about their human limitations and passions. But he could not ignore their great teachings. Vyasdev said through goddess Saraswati,'Nothing is truer than man, and nothing is above him. ' Chandidas echoed it after 2000 years. You can give a lot of examples. He saw Muhammed as nothing more than a man. He saw him as a great sage who was a seer of the past, present, and the future. He had the spirit to overlook the 
Human limitations. 
4. My concern about the accuracy of the historical accounts born out of oral traditions has not yet been addressed. I hope some one will give his valued comment on it. 
5. RN bashers question his moral values (his affairs with women including the wife of his elder brother) and use those to measure and discard him. These people should not be out role models. We need to learn small things and recognize big things. We must do this when we make judgment about personalities who have changed the world. 
Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 14, 2012, at 6:43 PM, Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com> wrote:

 

 Mr. Chakrabarty is a self claimed analytical man, though he forgot to spell it properly.  Some 'divine revelation' to some 'maharshi' is the 'holy book' on Islam.  Not even citations from the 'holy book' are enough to these 'anlytical' men to convince that the 'maharshi' was what was called 'a roving bandit' by Prof. Mancur Olson. The Surah I cited is a small one, but enough to prove the point that the 'revelations' always served the whims of the 'maharshi'  Fortunately, in those days even Muslims could be critical of their Prophet and their companions, now they can't.

Of course, nobody should expect an iota of common sense who considers totally illiterate fools as 'avatars' and 'maharshis.'  May be the followers of such avatars and maharshis would soon reveal the truth by going into trance(samadhi).  A small dose of 'somerasha' may help to bring about 'samadhi' soon.

"We expect more civility."  Who is this 'we'?  If these 'we' consisted of any moderator, my postings would be forbidden by now.  I don't have to learn 'civility' from functional illiterates.  I do not write here for the consumption for persons lacking even minimum 'anlytical' abilty.

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 9:29 PM, subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com> wrote:
 

1. Again the same typical "school-masterly" temper! This is not your pathsala. We expect more civility. By this time you should have recognized (a man full of himself will never do that any way) that this forum is visited by anlytical and informed people with broadness of mind. You ridiculed Vivekananda as he praised Islam and ridiculed Bankim also as he praised Muslim rulers. Now it is Rabindanath's turn. It has been revealed that he called Muhammad the maharishi of Islam. Probably you will ridicule him soon. That's your choice. I will not stoop as low as you do. Can you please directly go to your arguments without insulting a blogger? Thanks.
 
2. We have been discussing the veiling of women according to Islam. All of a sudden you have quoted a Sura (Verse CHI) without any relevance. I do not what you are trying to prove.
 
3. I read the juicy descriptions that you sent as quotes from well known references. It all sounded like myth to me. They were in such details. I simply questioned the reliability. (Let 100 percent muslims accept these as facts. I do not care. I am an analytical man. I love to go into the depths of the matter.) I did a little research and found that these accounts are not accepted by a big percentage of the readers. There are reasons. Muhammad lived during 570-632, Ibn Ishaq 704-766 (or 761?), and Bukhari during 810-870. About four genrations passed before Ishaq started recording the history and minimum eight generations passed before Bukhari strated his project. We have to take note of the fact that these accounts are not based on written documents. These are based on oral traditions. Traditions have been told and retold again and again. Volumes of traditions both Ishaq and Bukhari collected were so huge that they themselves had to use their own judgements to discard many of them. We also need to understand that when the narration of a fact travels from mouth to mouth over genrations it easily gets distorted. We the blind believers take any thing to be infallible and absolute if it comes from a revered author. We are afraid to challenge him. Only a brave inquiring mind is able to reveal further truths.       
 

From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 8:48 PM

Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Burqa banning after RAJUK, now Syedpur's Lions school and college: Minority Islam in Muslim majority Bangladesh
 
Ahadith by Bukhari is the most acceptable there is.  Any half wit not appreciating Bukhari, Tabari, Waquidi, Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Kathir etc. should read the gibberish 'holy verses' and try to interpret in his own way.  Read the verse CXI.  It is a short one.  "Perish the hands of Abu Lahab, and perish he!/  .... He shall roast at a flaming fire/ and his wife,..., upon her neck a rope of palm-fiber."  Abu Lahab was an uncle of the prophet, and two of his sons were married to two of the prophets daughters before the advent of Islam.

On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Subimal Chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com> wrote:
 
In this account from WikiIslam the prophet (maharishi in Ranindranath's term) has been shown to be most open minded. This account even seems to be 
dubious. I did a little google search to discover that the account by Ibn Ishak who on time scale was closest to prophet as a biographer has not been ununimously accepted. Acceptance of Bukhari seems to be less. 
It is really almost impossible to come up with the real truth. Research should continue. 
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 11, 2012, at 9:29 PM, Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com> wrote:
 
 The holy Koran has 'revelations' from earlier sources as well, e.g., Oracles of Delphi and other temples, the Old and New Testaments etc.  Other literature on Islam cites to Umar being proud on receiving the revelation on hijab before the Prophet.

Now, may I add from WikiIslam,
"The reason that Muslim women wear the hijab today is not a spiritual one, nor is it a matter of piety. Covering the hair/face cannot be considered an act of modesty because Muslim men are not required to cover theirs. The sole reason they do it is because Umar bin Al-Khattab, a companion of Muhammad, wished that Muhammad would reveal verses from Allah requiring women to wear it. When Muhammad did not oblige, Umar did not pray to Allah for assistance. Umar knew he had to make it personal for Muhammad himself in order to bring the revelation down. He followed Muhammad's wives out when they went to go to the toilet and made his presence known. When Muhammad heard of this, the revelation that Umar had so wanted was sent down from Allah. Umar knew where these revelations were really coming from, which is why he pestered Muhammad and harassed his wives instead of asking Allah.
Although the revelational circumstances for the hijab were ridiculous, the consequences that we can see to this day, are not. The requirement for the hijab has had the effect of placing full responsibility for Muslim-male self control onto the females - freeing the men of responsibility for their actions if they see an unveiled woman. Lack of self control is not an inherent attribute to men, because men in non-Islamic societies do not have such self control issues; when it is rare to see a woman covered so in these societies. The hijab's purpose, as revealed and to this day, is designed to protect Muslim females from the now acceptable behavior of Muslim males; behavior which has been deemed socially acceptable precisely because of the requirement of Muslim females to wear the hijab."
One may notice that the Prophet did not prevent Umar from stalking his wives even to the place of defecation.  It might so happen that he actually instructed to spy on them.

 
Thank you for sharing the source of your post. We can learn from it as well.

However do note that, ALL revelations in the holy Qur'an were revealed to prophet Muhammad (PBUH) NOT anyone else. Hazrat Omar (RA) might have wished for the clearer direction about the level of modesty required and that is acceptable to me. Revelations only came to messengers of Allah (SWT) not to anyone else. It would be a mistake to think Allah revealed any verse to Omar (RA).

A complete body cover excluding the eyes

Also note that, the covering the whole body but eyes is not part of the revelation. It is an assumption and there are differences of opinions among scholars of Islam. Generally some scholars feel women are required to cover whole body ( Including face except eyes) but majority of Islamic scholars feel just covering head and rest of the body is required. So you may see Muslim women with face veil (Niqaab) and others cover their heads and body (Hijab). So there are differences of opinions about "Levels of modesty" among scholars.


__._,_.___


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

RE: [mukto-mona] Fw: Pakistan created on a fake ideology by Dr Farooq Haider Maudoodi [1 Attachment]

[Attachment(s) from S A Hannan included below]

Respected Jiten sahib and others,

Jamaate Islami is a victim of relentless propaganda by left intellectuals ( who do not believe in democracy or religion), most western lobbies and media ,part of Indian media and Raw, the Jewish lobby.

I honestly tell you that I know this movement since 1957, it is the most democratic and lawful party , I have seen.It does not believe in violence. It believes in Jihad or armed struggle where it is appropriate, such as in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Kashmir when all peaceful methods fail.

1971 is a different matter , in the cycle of events, it got involved but the main parties then were Yahia sahib, Sheikh sahib and Bhutto sahib and their parties. Many wrong things happened then by all hands, that is the reason why all should try to avoid war or civil war of all types.

Please read the attached book in addition to othe books you have read on 71.

 

Shah Abdul Hannan.

 

I

 

 


From: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jiten Roy
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 9:11 PM
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Fw: Pakistan created on a fake ideology by Dr Farooq Haider Maudoodi

 

Hannan-Bhai and others,

After reading the interview of Mr. Haider Moududi, only question came to my mind is – why and how did Jamaat-e-Islami depart from values of Moulana Moududi?

Obviously, I do not have the answer, except to say that this party has been a victim of exploitation by the national as well as the international vested interests, who have exploited the concept of Jihad for petty political causes, and millions of young cadres of Jamat-e-Islami and other religious organizations are brainwashed to sacrifice their lives for that. I cannot agree more with Mr. Haider Moududi on everything he said. He is dead on - when it comes to sacrificing lives in the name of Jihad - it’s always other people’s lives, not any of their own. I hope this interview will help those young souls in Jamat and other religious, as well as political, parties to wake up and see the light of the day, and they will be lucky enough to see it before it’s too late for them.

Jiten Roy



--- On Fri, 3/16/12, Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com> wrote:


From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
Subject: [mukto-mona] Fw: Pakistan created on a fake ideology by Dr Farooq Haider Maudoodi
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, March 16, 2012, 9:56 AM



--- On Fri, 3/16/12, SyedAslam <syed.aslam3@gmail.com> wrote:


From: SyedAslam <syed.aslam3@gmail.com>
Subject: Pakistan created on a fake ideology by Dr Farooq Haider Maudoodi
To: "Khobor" <khabor@yahoogroups.com>, "notun Bangladesh" <notun_bangladesh@yahoogroups.com>, chottala@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, March 16, 2012, 12:12 AM

Pakistan created on a fake ideology by Dr Farooq Haider Maudoodi:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXlP0uqKVI8

 

 

 

 

An Interview with Haider Farooq Mawdudi, Noted Pakistani Islamic Scholar:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Attachment(s) from S A Hannan

1 of 1 File(s)


__._,_.___


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___