August 28, 2009 Leave a comment
Junoon’s Live Performance at Rumsey Field, Central Park, New York – Aug. 09/98.
最新消息 ,آخر الأخبار,خبر یں ,Son Haberler Latest News,Views,Opinions
August 28, 2009 Leave a comment
Indian Nukes Need More Testing, Say Scientists
india.test.site.lgAs if the embarassment over India’s missiles capability wasn’t enough, a senior Indian scientist has admitted for the first time that India’s 1998 Pokhran II nuclear tests were actually far from the success they have been claimed to be. The yield of the thermonuclear explosions was much below expectations and the tests more a ‘fizzle’ rather than a big bang.
It is important to note that India does not have a functional long range missile. The 250 km ‘Prithvi’ is the only fully tested, functional, and ready deployed nuclear-capable missile that India has in its arsenal. With doubtful nuclear capability, India’s missiles might not be more than a set of expensive fireworks.
Pakistan’s 2,500 km ‘Ghauri’ on the other hand is able to reach all major Indian cities, with Ghauri III (3,500) and Tipu (4,500) nearing testing stage.
August 22, 2009 1 Comment
Pakistan Army’s journey from its humble beginnings to its transformation into a modern lethal fighting force of today.
The story of the advancement of Pakistan Army is the tale of the birth of Pakistan, since its inception from the freckled nucleus of a regal legacy to its present status of an avant-garde and combat-tested field Army; it is an epoch of development which leaves behind its trials and tribulations, calamities and conflicts, as it struggled, with scarcity of possessions to embark on its shaping years. This is, conceivably, the enormous paradigm amongst few armies in history to have faced a war right at its setting up and, in the subsequent years, besides guarding the geographical precincts, it is always prepared to protect the ideological boundaries of the country.
Nations can dream of their socio-economic progress and development only when they are sure that their guardians are strong enough to ensure protection and peace. In case of Pakistan, a strong defence was all the more a stark reality to face the encounters and hostilities with unflinching courage. Our chivalrous soldiers of brave Armed Forces, apart from defending the countrys borders, always remained in the forefront of national development. Whether floods, earth-quakes and other natural calamites, maintain law and order or the UN peace efforts, the performance of our officers and men, always earned national and international acclaim from their friends and foes alike.
Army is an iridescent view, a vast canvas of vivid colours, pulsating with powerful currents of life. It has a flow and a body of its own whose velocity is sustained by noblest of traditions applied in very exacting manner. While it aims at destroying the aggressor, it requires its members to possess mettle of highest quality with sound character, most pure. The soldiers have invincible belief in the concept of Ghazi or Shaheed and it provides them great motivating force with specific element of self negation in the way of Almighty Allah, make them special breed of men.
It is the only profession in the world taken-up by the ablest bodies who vow to lay down their life willingly, in the way of Almighty Allah. It has a rhythm of its own perfected over hundreds of years of war fare, reflecting the very shades of Islamic accomplishments, soaked in local traditional history and continuity. Selfless bravery sacrifice and monumental endurance of adversity are the pillars of this splendid institution.
An ISPR Presentation.
August 22, 2009 Leave a comment
The British Empire once ruled over more than a quarter of the worlds
population. At its zenith, in the early twentieth century, it included over 20 percent of worlds land area and ruled more than 400 million people. It was then that the term The sun never sets in the British
Empire was coined.
The British used mercantilism to expand their empire and control their subjects. According to Dictionary.com mercantilism is the theory and system of political economy prevailing in Europe after the decline of feudalism, based on national policies of accumulating bullion,establishing colonies and a merchant marine, and developing industry and mining to attain a favorable balance of trade . The occupied territories provided much of the human capital and raw materials.
The British did not only exploit the subjects economically but made an
example of those who presented any kind of resistance. A good example to reflect the atrocities committed by the Empire is the treatment it meted to the Boer women and children in the South African War. Boers were proud of their heritage and presented fierce resistance. When after 2 years of ferocious war, the Empire seemed to have won, Boers started guerilla warfare that took another two years to end when the British army cut the supplies of ordinary Boers to starve the fighters. After resistance mellowed down and many of the fighters were killed, the British labeled the Boer women and children as
collaborators and sent them to concentration camps.
The modus operandi adopted by the British Empire was to exploit subdivisions within the foreign territories, capture their land and resources, station troops for long periods of time and transfer wealth. This strategy worked well until the beginning of the Second World War that took its toll on the Empire and diminished its control over the occupied countries.
The story of the American Empire is not much different.
The US government began to set its eyes on the world during the early part of the 19th century. Since then the country has slowly emerged as a new Imperialistic Empire, although such a scenario may not seem to be true on the surface.
Even before September 11th, the US government had a military presence in 140 countries. The United States now has military personnel deployed in 156 countries. It has between 700 to 800 military bases around the world totaling more than 250,000 personnel with around 845,000 different buildings and equipments covering land surface of 30 million acres.
The United States has long been involved in meddling with the affairs and influencing the domestic policies of the third world nations directly and indirectly. Some of the methods used for exercising influence over the subject nations include initially providing arms and aid, training foreign military leaders, conducting covert actions through the CIA and twisting arms through organizations like the United Nations. The procedure involves providing aid to the less developed nations through IMF and World Bank, funded by the West, that leads to the eventual inability of the poor country to repay the loan. Part of the debt is forgiven the third world countries are asked to make laws favorable
to the West. These poor nations are then bound to become subordinate to the loan providing nations.
In addition to interfering in countries like Iran, Panama and a number of
others, USA has been responsible for widespread killings and human rights violations in countries like Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Vietnam, Palestine, Afghanistan and most recently in Iraq. Burning hundreds of thousands of human beings alive in an instance, as happened in Japan, cannot be justified. To teach a lesson to a dictator, Saddam (who was initially encouraged by the US to confront Iran), bombing entire Iraqi cities and then starving millions of children, under the guise of UN embargo, can only be termed as barbaric.
Hypocrisy and double standards are quite obvious in the policies that the United States government has pursued from time to time. The policy is to dominate the world in the name of freedom, democracy and human rights. The American government support dictators like Musharraf when they suit its objectives and, on the other hand, reject the democratically elected governments, as happened in the case of Hamas, when they are not favorable to American agenda. Either you are with us or you are our enemy is the type of rhetoric that the leader of the free world , President George Bush, used to threaten countries to comply by his demands. When his government killed innocents through aerial bombings, it was called â€œcollateral damage. Unfortunately the western media too has played into the hands of the Imperialists. It is a powerful tool used to mould the opinions of the American public. The reason for this lies in the ownership and vested interests these media.
Amidst all this one thing should not be forgotten: every rise has a fall.
Some nations ruled for a thousand years while others for hundreds of years. However, no matter how strong and invincible they thought they were, each one of them came and then vanished leaving behind traces and some did not even leave a mark. What happened to the Pharos, the Romans and the Persians? The United States government has been the sole world power for just a few years. This time span is nothing in the life of a nation. The country will have to base its policies on justice and respect for human life. If it really wants to be known as a real super power even after it is no more the nations policy makers should try to create warmth for themselves in the hearts of people all around the world. Millions of people on the globe have pinned their hopes with the new US President Obama. He must not forget while making decisions that there is only one super power that has always been there and will always be there: God, Allah, Yahweh.Zeeshan Rahat Kureshi
PAKISTAN Air Force has started production of pilotless drones, days after Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani pressed the US to transfer the sensitive technology for a more potent type used by the American military to target the Taliban, reported a private TV channel on Thursday.
According to details issued by the PAF, the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex Kamra has commenced producing the pilotless planes Falco UAV in collaboration with Selex Galileo of Italy. Aeronautical Complex chief Air Marshal Farhat Hussain said pilotless Falco UAV highly important for the country’s defence, adding the production of the planes will greatly add to the professional capabilities of PAF.
Farhat said Pakistan is now a member of the club of countries manufacturing drone planes. The system will be used mainly for aerial reconnaissance and information gathering, although the PAF will later also induct UAVs equipped with weapon systems to carry out offensive operations.
A Chinese strategist finds that there is no single united India and that the country is actually made up of several competing power centers that can be easily split apart. This will surely abort the American-British plans for turning India into their new slave-soldier in Asia. The strategist also finds that India is a ‘Hindu religious state’ and not a secular state as it claims, and that Hinduism is a decadent religion hindering India’s progress with its outdated caste divisions.
NEW DELHI, India—Almost coinciding with the 13th round of Sino-Indian border talks (New Delhi , August 7-8, 2009), an article (in the Chinese language) has appeared in China captioned ‘If China takes a little action, the so-called Great Indian Federation can be broken up’ (Zhong Guo Zhan Lue Gang, http://www.iiss.cn, Chinese, August 8, 2009).
Claiming that Beijing’s ‘China-Centric’ Asian strategy provides for splitting India, the writer of the article, Zhan Lue (strategy), has found that New Delhi’s corresponding ‘India-Centric’ policy in Asia is in reality a ‘Hindustan centric’ one. But there is no such thing as ‘Hindustan’ and that many ‘local centers’ exist in several of the country’s provinces (barring UP and a few other northern regions), and Zhan Lue feels that in the face of such local characteristics, the ‘so-called’ Indian nation cannot be considered as one. No such single Indian nation has existed in history [with exception probably of the Muslim and British empires that united the country known today as India].
According to the article, if India today relies on anything for unity, it is the Hindu religion. The emergence of a republic of India in 1947 was based on religion [the Hindus were a majority so they should rule.] The Chinese strategist wrote that India could only be described today as a ‘Hindu religious state’.
Adding that Hinduism is a decadent religion as it allows caste exploitation and is unhelpful to the country’s modernization, it described the Indian government as one in a dilemma with regard to eradication of the caste system as it realizes that the process to do away with castes may shake the foundation of the consciousness of the Indian nation.
The writer has argued that in view of the above, China in its own interest and the progress of Asia, should join forces with different nationalities within India like the Assamese, Bengalese, Naxalites, Marathis, Punjabis, Tamils, and the occupied Kashmiris and support all of them in establishing independent nation-States of their own, out of India. In particular, the ULFA (United Liberation Front of Asom) in Assam, a territory neighboring China, can be helped by China so that Assam realizes its national independence.
The article has also felt that for Bangladesh, the biggest threat is from India, which wants to develop a great Indian empire extending from Afghanistan to Myanmar. India is also targeting China with support to Vietnam’s efforts to occupy Nansha (Spratly) group of islands in South China Sea.
This is why China should strengthen its alliance with Bangladesh, a country with which the US and Japan are also improving their relations to counter China. China should also open secret contacts with pro-independence groups fighting Indian rule in at least 13 states inside India.
China can give political support to Bangladesh enabling the latter to encourage ethnic Bengalis in India to get rid of Indian control and unite with Bangladesh as one Bengali nation; if the same is not possible, creation of at least another free Bengali nation state as a friendly neighbor of Bangladesh would be desirable for the purpose of weakening India’s expansion and threat aimed at forming a ‘India-controlled unified South Asia’.
To split India, China can bring into its fold countries like Pakistan, Nepal and Bhutan, support ULFA in attaining its goal for Assam’s independence, back aspirations of Indian nationalities like the Tamils and Nagas and Kashmiris, encourage Bangladesh to give a push to the independence of West Bengal and lastly recover the 90,000 sq km territory in southern Tibet which India illegally annexed and calls Arunachal Pradesh.
Wishing for India’s break-up into 20 to 30 nation-States like in Europe, the article has concluded by saying that if the consciousness of nationalities in India could be aroused, social reform and change in South Asia can be achieved, the caste system can be eradicated and the region can march along the road of prosperity.
By Mr. Rajan Who is Director, Chennai Centre for China Studies. This is an edited version of the original article published by the Indian news websites rediff.com
August 21, 2009 1 Comment
China will launch an attack on India before 2012.
There are multiple reasons for a desperate Beijing to teach India the final lesson, thereby ensuring Chinese supremacy in Asia in this century. The recession that shut the Chinese exports shop is creating an unprecedented internal social unrest. In turn, the vice-like grip of the communists over the society stands severely threatened.
Unemployment is on the rise. The unofficial estimate stands at a whopping fourteen percent. Worldwide recession has put thirty million people out of jobs. Economic slowdown is depleting the foreign exchange reserves. Foreign investors are slowly shifting out. To create a domestic market, the massive dole of loans to individuals is turning out to be a nightmare. There appears to be a flight of capital in billions of dollars in the shape of diamond and gold bought in Hong Kong and shipped out towards end 2008.
bharat-vermaThe fear of losing control over the Chinese masses is forcing the communists to compulsorily install filtering software on new computers on sale to crush dissent on the Internet, even though it is impossible to censor in entirety the flow of information as witnessed recently in Tibet, Xinjiang and Iran.
The growing internal unrest is making Beijing jittery.
The external picture appears to be equally dismal. The unfolding Obama strategy seems to be scoring goals for democracy and freedom without firing a single shot. While Bush unwittingly united and arrayed against himself Islamic countries and radical Islam worldwide, Obama has put radical Islam in disarray by lowering the intra-societal temperature vis-à-vis America and the Muslim world. He deftly hints at democracy in his talk without directly threatening any group or country and the youth picks it up from there – as in Iran. With more and more Chinese citizens beginning to demand political freedom, the future of the communists is also becoming uncertain. The technological means available in the 21st century to spread democracy is definitely not conducive for the totalitarian regime in Beijing.
India’s chaotic but successful democracy is an eyesore for the authoritarian regime in Beijing. Unlike India, China is handicapped as it lacks the soft power – an essential ingredient to spread influence. This further adds fuel to the fire.
mapIn addition, the growing irrelevance of Pakistan, their right hand that operates against India on their behest, is increasing the Chinese nervousness. Obama’s AF-PAK policy is primarily a PAK-AF policy. It has intelligently set the thief to catch the thief. The stated withdrawal from Iraq by America now allows it to concentrate its military surplus on the single front to successfully execute the mission. This surplus, in combination with other democratic forces, enables America to look deep into resource rich Central Asia, besides containing China’s expansionist ambitions.
To offset this adverse scenario, while overtly pretending to side with the West, the Chinese covertly ordered their other proxy, North Korea, to test underground nuclear explosions and carry out trials of missiles that threaten Japan and South Korea. The Chinese anxiety is understandable. Under Bush’s declared policy of being ‘a strategic competitor’ alongside the ‘axis of evil’, they shared a large strategic maneuverability with others of similar hues. However, Obama policies wisely deny such a luxury by reclaiming more and more international strategic space ceded by the previous administration.
highlight-1The communists in China, therefore, need a military victory to unite the disillusioned citizenry behind them. This will assist in marketing the psychological perception that the 21st century belongs to China and assert their deep belief in the superiority of the Chinese race. To retain the communist party’s hold on power, it is essential to divert attention from the brewing internal dissent. In an autocratic system normally the only recipe to unite the citizenry is by mannpulating their nationalistic feelings. The easy method for Beijing to heighten the feeling of patriotism and forging national unity is to design a war with an adversary. They believe that this will help them to midwife the Chinese century. That is the end game rooted in the abiding conviction of the communists that the Chinese race is far superior to Nazi Germany and is destined to “Lord over the Earth”.
At present, there is no overall cost benefit ratio in integrating Taiwan by force with the mainland, since under the new dispensation in Taipei, the island is ‘behaving’ itself. Also, the American presence around the region is too strong for comfort. There is also the factor of Japan to be reckoned. Though Beijing is increasing its naval presence in the South China Sea to coerce into submission those opposing its claim on the Sprately Islands, at this point of time in history it will be unwise for recession-hit China to move against the Western interests, including Japan. Therefore, the most attractive option is to attack a soft target like India and forcibly occupy its territory in the Northeast.
Ideally, the Chinese believe that the east-wind should prevail over the west-wind. However, despite their imperial calculations of the past, they lag behind the West, particularly America, by many decades. Hence, they want the east-wind to at least prevail over the other east-wind, i.e., India, to ensure their dominance over Asia. Beijing’s cleverly raising the hackles on its fabricated dispute in Arunachal Pradesh to an alarming level, is the preparatory groundwork for imposing such a conflict on India. A sinking Pakistan will team up with China to teach India “the final lesson”.
The Chinese leadership wants to rally its population behind the communist rule. As it is, Beijing is already rattled, with its proxy Pakistan, now literally embroiled in a civil war, losing its sheen against India. Above all, it is worried over the growing alliance of India with the United States and the West, because the alliance has the potential to create a technologically superior counterpoise.
All these three concerns of the Chinese communists are best addressed by waging a war against pacifist India to achieve multiple strategic objectives. But India, otherwise the biggest challenge to the supremacy of China in Asia, is least prepared on ground to face the Chinese threat.
How will India repel the Chinese game plan? Will Indian leadership be able to take the heat of war? Have they laid the groundwork adequately to defend India? Is the Indian military equipped to face the two-front war by Beijing and Islamabad? Is the Indian Civil Administration geared to meet the internal security challenges that the external actors will sponsor simultaneously through their doctrine of unrestricted warfare?
The answers is an unequivocal ‘NO’. Pacifist India is not ready by a long shot either on the internal or the external front.
It is said that long time back, a king with an excellent military machine at his disposal could not stomach the violence involved in winning wars. So he renounced war in victory. This led to the rise of the pacifist philosophies. The state either refused to defend itself or neglected the instruments that could defend it.
Any ‘extreme’ is dangerous, as it tends to create imbalance in statecraft.
highlight-2We saw that in the unjust unilateral aggression in Iraq. It diminished the American aura and recessed the economy. China’s despotic regime is another extreme, scared to permit political dissent. This will fuel an explosion worse than the Tiananmen Square. Despite the use of disproportionate force and the demographic invasion of Tibet, Beijing’s hold remains tenuous. Pakistan’s over-aggressive agenda in the name of jihad haunts it now to the point of fragmentation of the State.
Similarly, India’s pacifism is the other extreme. 26/11s will occur on a regular basis as it infects policy-making. Such extreme postures on either side invariably generate wars. Armed with an aggressive Wahabi philosophy, Pakistan, in cohort with China, wants to destabilize a pacifist India. India’s instruments of state steeped in pacifism are unable to rise to its defence.
In the past sixty years, the deep-rooted pacifism contributed to the Civil Administration, ceding control of forty per cent of the Union’s territory to the Maoists and ten percent to the insurgents, effecting a shrinking influence internally, as well in the ‘near abroad’.
India must rapidly shift out from its defeatist posture of pacifism to deter China. New Delhi’s stance should modify, not to aggression, but to a firm assertion in statecraft. The state must also exclusively retain the capability of intervention by use of force internally as well as externally. If it permits the non-state actors to develop this capability in competition, then the state will whither away. On the contrary, the state machinery should ensure a fast-paced development in the Red Corridor even it if has to hold Maoists hostage at gunpoint. The state’s firm and just intervention will dissolve the Maoist movement.
Keeping in view the imminent threat posed by China, the quickest way to swing out of pacifism to a state of assertion is by injecting military thinking in the Civil Administration to build the sinews. That will enormously increase the deliverables on ground – from Lalgarh to Tawang. (by Abhijay Patel)
Illusion of “China’s Attack on India Before 2012″
Chinese Response, By Chen Xiaochen
The 2000 km border between China and India has been a notable absence from press headlines in the years since then-Indian PM Vajpayee’s 2003 visit to Beijing. Tensions, however, have risen again as India announced last month a plan to deploy two additional army divisions and two air force squadrons of Su-30 Fighter Unit, some 60,000 soldiers in total, in a disputed border area in the southern part of Tibet, which India claims as its state of Arunachal Pradesh.
Adding fuel to the flames is an article by Bharat Verma, editor of Indian Defense Review, predicting that China will attack India before 2012, leaving only three years to Indian government for preparation.
highlight-3According to Mr. Verma, “growing unrest in China” due in part to economic downturn will leave the Chinese government looking for something to “divert the attention of its own people from ‘unprecedented’ internal dissent, growing unemployment and financial problems.” China will also want to strike India before the latter becomes powerful, which is the reason for the 2012 “deadline.” India, with its growing affiliation with the West, is yet weak under China’s fire.
But a “China’s attack” is not going to happen, and one wonders at the basis for Mr. Verma’s thinking. First, although it is true that China’s macro-economy has taken a hit from the global financial crisis, the extent of the damage is under control. Recent statistics shows China’s economy grew 7.1% in the first half of 2009, while its foreign exchange reserve has exceeded $2 trillion. China’s stimulus plan has been effective and given people confidence. China will survive the global downturn as well or better than the rest of the world’s economies.
And even if China’s economy was really all that bad, would the government try to distract “unrest” by taking military actions against India? Mr Verma’s reasoning rests on a lack of documentation. Looking into the past 60 years, China has no record of launching a war to divert public attention from anything. Moreover, while Mr. Verma supposes the Chinese Communist Party has no cards to play other than “invading India,” the Party, widely experienced in dealing with domestic disputes, will hardly in only three years have run out of all options facing potential social instability. Moreover, even if Chinese leaders considered such an option, they would certainly be aware that an external war would severely jeopardize domestic affairs.
Other reasons the author mentions in the article are also vague. The Western powers would not take kindly to a Chinese conflict with India, leaving China rightfully reluctant to use force in any case other than extreme provocation. US forces well deployed in Afghanistan and Pakistan could check any China’s military action in South Asia. And then there is also the nuclear problem: there has never been a war between two nuclear equipped nations, and both sides would have to be extremely cautious in decision-making, giving more room for less violent solutions.
Further, it is important to realize there is no reason for China to launch a war, against India in particular. Economic development, rather than military achievement, has long been the consensus of value among China’s core leaders and citizens. Despite occasional calls to “Reoccupy South Tibet (occupied Chinese territory),” China’s decision-making is always cautious. It is not possible to see a Chinese “incursion” into India, even into Tawang, an Indian-occupied Buddhist holy land over which China argues a resolute sovereignty.
Last but not least, China’s strategy, even during the 1962 border war with India, has been mainly oriented towards the east, where Taiwan is its core interest, while the recent Xinjiang unrest highlights China’s growing anti-terrorist tasks in the northwest – both issues are more important than the southwest border. If China were to be involved in a war within the next three years, as unlikely as that seems, the adversary would hardly be India. The best option, the sole option, open for the Chinese government is to negotiate around the disputed territory.
However, there is one scenario where there is possibility for war: an aggressive Indian policy toward China, a “New Forward Policy,” may aggravate border disputes and push China to use force – despite China’s appeal, as far as possible, for peaceful solutions.
Consider the 1959-1962 conflict, the only recorded war between China and India in the long history of their civilizations. After some slight friction with China in 1959, the Indian army implemented aggressive action known as its Forward Policy. The Chinese Army made a limited but successful counterattack in 1962.
Now, it seems “back to the future”. Mr. Verma asserts another war will happen before 2012, a half century after the last, regrettable one. India has started to deploy more troops in the border area, similar to its Forward Policy 50 years ago. Is Mr. Verma’s China-bashing merely a justification for more troops deployed along the border? Will India’s “New Forward Policy”, as the old one did 50 years ago, trigger a “2012 war?”
The answers lie mainly on the Indian side. Given China’s relatively small military garrison in Tibet, Indian’s 60,000 additional soldiers may largely break the balance. If India is as “pacific” as Mr. Verma says, and is sincere in its border negotiation, China-India friendship will remain. After all, China shares a long and mostly friendly cultural exchange with India as well as other neighbors. Now China is seeking deeper cooperation, wider coordination, and better consensus with India, especially in the global recession, and peace is a precondition for doing so. China wants to say, “We are on the same side,” as the Indian Ambassador did in a recent interview in China. Thus, “China will attack India before 2012″ is a provocative and inflammatory illusion.
August 3, 2009 Leave a comment
Junoon (Urdu: جنون, literal English translation: “obsession/passion”) was South Asia’s biggest and Pakistan‘s most popular rock band from Lahore. It was formed in 1990 by guitarist, songwriter and medical doctor Salman Ahmad. They are also regarded as the pioneers of Sufi rock.
Q magazine calls them “One of the biggest bands in the world”
In a preview to Junoon’s performance at the House of Blues in Los Angeles, the L.A. Times says Junoon’s “ability to captivate audiences” is “inspiring Beatles-like reactions”.
“An international phenomenon.”—Allmusic.com
“A powerful combination of the pump-your-fist hard rock of Led Zeppelin or Santana and traditional South Asian percussion like tabla and dholak.” —Wall Street Journal