Indian Defence Forum

Indian Defence Forum - Pakistan http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/ To discuss all military, strategic and general affairs related to Pakistan en Sat, 19 May 2012 01:13:20 GMT vBulletin 60 http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/images/misc/rss.png Indian Defence Forum - Pakistan http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/ Indian, Arabic cultures influenced our country, moot told http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/pakistan/36460-indian-arabic-cultures-influenced-our-country-moot-told.html Fri, 18 May 2012 15:37:21 GMT Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2012/05/18/story_18-5-2012_pg12_1) * Media asked to... Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

* Media asked to portray Pakistani culture and its values

* Need stressed to bring balance between media and culture

KARACHI: Vice Chancellor Sindh Madressatul Islam University (SMIU) Dr Muhammad Ali Shaikh has said that the powerful Indian and Arabic cultures have influenced our region/country since many centuries, as it is located between these two civilizations. Despite that people of our country have upheld their own culture and sub-cultures in every age of the history.

Speaking as chief guest at a seminar organised by the students of BS Media Studies of SMIU on ‘Portrayal of Pakistani Culture by Pakistani Media’ at Sir Shahnawaz Bhutto Auditorium on Thursday, Dr Shaikh said like other countries Pakistan has its own dynamic culture, with blend of its sub-cultures.

He was of the view that Sindh Madressatul Islam (SMI) had maintained its unique culture and traditions since the last 117 years. Besides, SMI has played a major role in changing the culture of the region by promoting ideology of tolerance inherited it from Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah.

He said, “We are Pakistani nation and we have to make it beautiful by promoting our culture, values and traditions.” He further said that Quaid-e-Azam had bequeathed one third of his property to his alma mater, SMI, through his last will and that was is why the students of SMIU are heirs of the Quaid and have more responsibility to work for Pakistan than the students of other institutions.

Adviser to Sindh Chief Minister on Media Sharmila Farooqui said that she had always felt pride and honour to visit Sindh Madressah, because this great institution happens to be an alma mater of Quaid -e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah.

She said the media must portray Pakistani culture and its values because these are our identification. She was of the opinion that a section of media promotes signalisation in their talk shows and other programmes rather than discussing on real issues of the people.

Paying rich tribute to Sindhi, Balochi, Punjabi and Pashto print and electronic media, she said these are displaying very beautiful cultures of their regions that help the world to understand the culture of Pakistan.

Farooqui also said the corporate culture of media is trying to sale out negativity as they consider their programmes a commodity. “By this way we couldn’t serve our nation and country, she said.

She appreciated the research papers presented by the students of SMIU on various aspects of media and culture. She also congratulated Dr Shaikh on receiving university status for Sindh Madressatul Islam.

Dean of SZABIST Dr Fozia Khan said the principles and ethic are lacking in our media. She also asserted that there is a need to bring about a balance between media and culture. She said a negative portrayal of our culture is damaging our ideology and values.

Chairperson of Mass Communication, Department of Karachi University, Raffia Taj said digital media is negatively affecting thoughts of our young generation, as a result they are going away from book culture and are mostly relying on only internet for their research work. Talking about SMIU, she said the SMIU is a great legacy of our nation, hence its students must promote SMIU culture and legacy in their future life.

Earlier, the students of BS Media Studies Faraz Ahmed, Quratul Ain, Zargoona Khan and others presented their research papers on various aspects of media and culture. staff report ]]> Pakistan nitesh http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/pakistan/36460-indian-arabic-cultures-influenced-our-country-moot-told.html Scraping through: 45% population living below the poverty line, reports BISP http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/pakistan/36446-scraping-through-45-population-living-below-poverty-line-reports-bisp.html Fri, 18 May 2012 11:20:07 GMT ISLAMABAD: As many as 45.7% of the entire population is living under the poverty line, according to a door-to-door survey carried out by Benazir... ISLAMABAD:
As many as 45.7% of the entire population is living under the poverty line, according to a door-to-door survey carried out by Benazir Income Support Programme (BISP). The results sharply negate the outcome of another official survey which calculated incidence of poverty at 12%.
BISP Chairperson Farzana Raja told the National Assembly Standing Committee on Finance that 80 million people live below the poverty line. The survey did not include Federally Administrated Tribal Areas where it was delayed because of the security situation.
The door-to-door poverty survey was launched for identifying the lowest income segment in order to provide Rs1,000 monthly grant to needy people. The country’s total population is 175.3 million, according to the National Accounts Committee.
The survey results were based on a comprehensive questionnaire and the answers have been securitised in a computer to avoid human errors, said Farzana Raja.
The results of the BISP survey negate the outcome of Pakistan Social and Living Standards Measurement (PSLM) Survey 2010-11. According to the results of the basis of PSLM survey which was a committee constituted by Planning Commission Deputy Chairman Dr Nadeemul Haque, the incidence of poverty has declined from 17.2% in 2008 to slightly over 12% in 2011. In 2010-11, the estimated population was 175.3 million and around 21.5 million people were living in abject poverty.
The government is reluctant to officially announce the PSLM survey based results. Experts argue that a drop in poverty is impossible when there is an average job growth of 2.6% in the last four years against the requirement of 8% and inflation has stayed in double-digits for the fifth consecutive year.
The government’s expenditures exceeding its incomes became the biggest reason for double-digit inflation in the country,” conceded Finance Minister Dr Abdul Hafeez Shaikh in the committee meeting. He said the government’s other big failure was decreasing investment. Out of every Rs100 income, the country invests only Rs12.5 – the lowest ratio in history, according to the Annual Plan Coordination Committee report.
Farzana Raja said that BISP data almost matched the PSLM data.
BISP is currently providing Rs1,000 monthly cash grant to 40 million people or 23% of the total population. IF the grant was being provided using the Planning Commission’s methodology 18.5 million people would have been deprived of the BISP.
He added that out of 80 million total poor in the country, 64 million or 36.5% of the population lives in chronic poverty.
She proposed the BISP can sit with Planning Commission and Pakistan Bureau of Statistics to share its findings.
She said the BISP needs Rs106 billion next year just to feed 40 million people, currently covered in the programme. However, the finance ministry has budgeted Rs60 billion, which is only 56.6% of the demand. Farzana Raja said that the US would soon provide $75 million under Kerry Lugar Act for the BISP.
The federal government has provided Rs126 billion to the BISP in the past four years while an amount of Rs26 billion was given by the foreign lenders, said Finance Secretary Wajid Rana.
Published in The Express Tribune, May 18th, 2012. ]]> Pakistan agentperry http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/pakistan/36446-scraping-through-45-population-living-below-poverty-line-reports-bisp.html U.S. Agonizes Over Apology to Pakistan http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/pakistan/36436-u-s-agonizes-over-apology-pakistan.html Fri, 18 May 2012 08:18:16 GMT *U.S. Agonizes Over Apology to Pakistan * (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303505504577406151609731364.html) For nearly six months... U.S. Agonizes Over Apology to Pakistan

For nearly six months after U.S.-led forces accidentally killed two dozen Pakistani troops at the Afghanistan border, officials at the highest reaches of the Obama administration have been locked in a heated debate over what might appear to be a small step—apologizing for the loss.
The U.S. had expressed "regret" for the Nov. 26 deaths. But whether to publicly apologize, at the risk of appearing weak to Pakistan or American voters, was argued in dozens of video conference calls, nearly 20 high-level White House meetings and hundreds of confidential emails.

The administration came to the brink of saying sorry several times. One mission to deliver an apology by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was aborted midflight.

Pakistan kept closed an important supply route for U.S. forces in Afghanistan while waiting, with the delay extracting a steep price that U.S. officials say will only go up. Islamabad this week indicated that it would reopen the supply route in return for up to a 30-fold increase in the passage fees, officials said. The U.S. last year moved 35,000 shipping containers through Pakistan, paying the country nearly $200 in fees for each, congressional officials said.

The decision to reopen the supply route came as Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari announced he would attend a two-day summit of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization that begins Sunday in Chicago. U.S. officials said privately that Pakistan's proposed fee increase was unreasonable. A Pentagon spokesman said negotiations were continuing. Officials expect a compromise as early as the NATO meeting.

The drawn-out debate shows how the U.S. remains confounded by efforts to repair relations with Pakistan. It was complicated by election year politics. And it revealed tensions within the Obama administration's national-security team, which on issues involving Afghanistan and Pakistan has struggled to reach consensus and deliver a coordinated message.

Advocates of apology, in particular among U.S. diplomats, said it was the best way to mend relations. Opponents said it would be interpreted as U.S. weakness just as Washington wanted to pressure Pakistan to root out militant havens along its border, including those launching attacks on U.S. troops.

This account of the diplomatic tug of war is based on interviews with nearly a dozen current and former officials of the Obama administration, as well as Pakistani officials.

The debate began almost immediately after Nov. 26 last year. On that day, a 150-man U.S.-Afghan commando team near the Pakistan border came under attack and called in air support, according to U.S. officials. U.S. helicopters fired on two Pakistani border posts. The Pentagon said Pakistani troops at the posts opened fire first, which Pakistan has denied. Pakistan has accused the U.S. of deliberately firing at its troops.

For Pakistanis, the killings were another U.S. affront to national pride. Only seven months earlier, the U.S. sneaked elite special forces into the country to kill Osama bin Laden. An immediate apology, Pakistani officials argued in November, would ease tensions and ward off protests.

The U.S. military believed an immediate apology amounted to an admission of fault. Even so, the Pentagon privately told Pakistan it was prepared to pay restitution to the families of those killed. Pakistan rejected the cash without an apology.

Vali Nasr, a former top adviser on Pakistan in the Obama administration, said people in Pakistan interpreted the U.S. refusal to apologize to mean "it intended to kill the 24 people."

At the White House, officials rejected the first of several apology proposals, including one that called for President Barack Obama to personally deliver a condolence message to the Pakistani people.

In late December, the Pentagon released its investigation. The U.S. concluded both American and Pakistan troops erred. Islamabad rejected the finding.

On Dec. 21, the night before the Pentagon's investigation was released, top U.S. policy makers convened for a 5 p.m. secure video teleconference and agreed to apologize. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta wasn't enthusiastic but didn't object, Jeremy Bash, Mr. Panetta's chief of staff, told the group, according to officials.

Though divided about apologizing, defense officials wanted border supply crossings to reopen as soon as possible. The U.S. and NATO allies had to route shipments through a northern route through Russia, Central Asia and the Caucasus, which cost 2½ times more per container than going through Pakistan, according to Pentagon estimates.

Under the Dec. 21 plan, Pentagon press secretary George Little would issue an apology the next morning. "We mourn the loss of life and apologize for the weaknesses in our border coordination processes which contributed to this tragic accident," one early draft read.

At 10 p.m., Mr. Bash reported that top policy makers at the White House and the Pentagon had reversed course. White House National Security Adviser Tom Donilon was among the officials who asked that the word "apologize" be replaced by "deepest regret" and "sincere condolences." Mr. Panetta helped draft the changes, officials said.

In the hours that followed, State Department and some Pentagon officials urged the White House to reconsider the decision, arguing that "apology" would make a critical difference with Pakistan and wasn't much different from "regret."

U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan Cameron Munter told the group an apology would increase the chances of persuading Pakistan to reopen the border crossings.

Mrs. Clinton's chief policy aide, Jake Sullivan, told colleagues the U.S. should acknowledge its mistakes. He argued that an apology would strengthen Washington's hand in pressing Pakistan to step up its fight against militants, according to officials in the debate.

Michele Flournoy, then the undersecretary of defense for policy, suggested language that apologized for the "unintentional and tragic" deaths but didn't accept full responsibility, officials said. Ms. Flournoy, who has since left the administration, told the group the U.S. risked the issue festering.

On Dec. 22, Mr. Little, the Pentagon spokesman, read the revised expression of "regret" but without an apology.

Pakistan wouldn't reopen the supply routes, prompting administration officials to rehash the debate in high-level meetings at the White House chaired by Mr. Donilon and his deputy, Denis McDonough, officials said.

One senior administration official said the potential for presumed Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney to use an apology as a political attack didn't come up in these meetings. Other officials said concerns about giving the Romney campaign ammunition weighed on the minds of Mr. Obama's political advisers.

After first pressing for an immediate apology, some Pakistani officials in January and February said they wanted the U.S. to wait until Pakistan's parliament completed a review, according to U.S. officials. These Pakistani officials preferred any U.S. apology to come in response to recommendations from parliament.

The mixed messages added to the confusion. Some U.S. officials argued for an immediate apology to show Pakistan it couldn't dictate the timetable, according to U.S. officials. It "muddied the whole process," a U.S. official said.

The Pentagon had prepared for a lengthy border closure by building stocks of fuel and ammunition in Afghanistan. The winter fighting lull eased demand for supplies, blunting the supply route closure.

But as spring approached, war planners wanted assurances the crossings would reopen ahead of the thaw, when the fighting would increase.

Officials debated having Central Command chief, Gen. James Mattis, deliver an apology to Pakistan's Army chief, Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, during a proposed trip to Islamabad in February. White House officials told reporters the trip would be the first step toward thawing relations. It never materialized.

On Feb. 21, the White House approved a new plan. Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, would apologize by phone to Gen. Kayani the next day. Mrs. Clinton was scheduled to meet with Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar in London.

As Mrs. Clinton prepared to leave Washington on Feb. 22, a draft statement was prepared for her, officials said: "As Chairman Dempsey conveyed to Gen. Kayani, we apologize for our part in the accidental tragedy."

Mrs. Clinton took off from Andrews Air Force Base and while over the Atlantic, she received word: the apologies were off. Violent protests had broken out in Afghanistan after U.S. military personnel burned Islamic books, including Qurans, drawing an apology from Mr. Obama to Afghan President Hamid Karzai in a personal letter.

Apologizing to Afghanistan and Pakistan on the same day was too much for the Obama administration, officials said. "Two apologies at once would make it look like everything's unraveling," said a senior U.S. official. The White House worried it would "look weak," another official said.

During their meeting in London, Ms. Khar told Mrs. Clinton it was up to the U.S. to determine the nature and the timing of the apology, according to U.S. and Pakistani officials.

In March and early April, the White House discussed having the U.S. special envoy to the region, Marc Grossman, or Deputy Secretary of State Thomas Nides deliver the message. Those plans went nowhere.

Officials then agreed to wait for Pakistan's parliamentary review. Released on April 12, the parliamentary report called for Islamabad to seek an "unconditional apology," among other demands, for the 24 deaths.

Ms. Khar argued an apology would smooth the path to resolve other contentious issues, according to U.S. and Pakistani officials. The countries, for example, are at odds over the U.S. use of drones to attack militants in Pakistan.

Her message to U.S. officials during recent meetings was that the Pakistani public "noticed that you apologized for the Quran burning within 24 hours and here we are with 24 people killed and there's been no apology for five months," U.S. officials recalled.

On April 15, militants launched coordinated attacks in Kabul. U.S. and Afghan intelligence agencies blamed the Haqqani network, which is based in Pakistan and has ties to Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency.

"How can you apologize to a country that is providing through some parts of its government tacit support to the Haqqani network, which is actively attacking our guys," the senior administration official said. "This isn't about politics. This is about the message that would send to our troops and that's what no one in the military or the White House could countenance."

U.S. officials told the Pakistanis the April 15 attack effectively "killed" any chances of an apology for now, said officials on both sides.

"This goes to the fact that we don't know how to deal with the Pakistanis," one senior U.S. official said. An official close to the Pakistan government likewise lamented: "If the apology would have occurred in the first or the second day, as it should have, we could have moved on."

Write to Adam Entous at adam.entous@wsj.com, Siobhan Gorman at siobhan.gorman@wsj.com and Julian E. Barnes at julian.barnes@wsj.com

A version of this article appeared May 18, 2012, on page A1 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: U.S. Agonizes Over Apology to Pakistan. ]]> Pakistan ajtr http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/pakistan/36436-u-s-agonizes-over-apology-pakistan.html With Arnab Goswami, is there hope for Aman Ki Asha? http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/pakistan/36435-arnab-goswami-there-hope-aman-ki-asha.html Fri, 18 May 2012 08:05:02 GMT *With Arnab, is there hope for Aman Ki Asha? * (http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2012\05\18\story_18-5-2012_pg7_20) By Ajaz Ashraf ... With Arnab, is there hope for Aman Ki Asha?

By Ajaz Ashraf

Aman Ki Asha is an incredible joint media initiative of The Times of India and the Jang Group to foster peace between India and Pakistan. Yet you begin to doubt the mission of Aman Ki Asha and wonder about the sincerity of its two media partners as you watch Arnab Goswami conduct TV debates on issues over which India and Pakistan regularly squabble. Arnab is no ordinary anchor – he is the editor-in-chief of Times Now, the TV channel which belongs to the formidable stable of The Times of India (TOI), arguably India’s most influential and biggest media group.

Arnab’s style of anchoring is inimitable as well as grating. He snaps, snarls, and growls, mocking those who don’t subscribe to his views on Pakistan, and extremely encouraging of those who do. Stung by his abrasive style, Pakistani lawyer Anees Jillani wrote in an Indian magazine last year, “I have learnt over a period of time that the best course of action is, simply, to not go to Times Now.”

I began to obsess about Arnab as I read the TOI’s extensive, over-the-top coverage of the 2nd Pakistan-India Economic Conference that was held in Lahore on May 7-8, under the banner of Aman Ki Asha. I downloaded from the TOI website, as also YouTube, many of the video recordings of the past debates Arnab had moderated on issues pertaining to India-Pakistan relations. Let me not prejudice you. You should read the text of one such debate and judge whether or not Arnab’s style – and beliefs – is antithetical to the spirit of Aman Ki Asha.

I click the start icon on my computer to listen and transcribe the debate Arnab hosted the day after President Asif Ali Zardari visited India, where he had lunch in Delhi with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and paid obeisance at the mausoleum of Sufi saint Moinuddin Chishti. Because of the space constraint, I will have to edit the transcript severely. Should you doubt the veracity of the transcript below, please google – Arnab Goswami+debate+Zardari – to doublecheck my version.

Arnab introduces the topic of the debate: Any gains for India from Zardari’s visit? The participants in the debate are journalist Swapan Dasgupta, former Indian diplomat MK Bhadrakumar and Fauzia Kasuri, president of the women’s wing of Pakistan’s Tehreek-e-Insaf. He asks Swapan Dasgupta what he thinks of the expectations Zardari’s visit to India has generated. Position to the right on the Indian ideological spectrum, Swapan blames India for turning Zardari’s spiritual pilgrimage into a diplomatic one. He finds the bonhomie displayed on the visit has stoked expectations. Further, Swapan argues, to placate the domestic sentiments, the Indian foreign secretary issued a statement saying the prime minister had raised the issue of Hafiz Saeed with Zardari, which prompted the media to claim that India had taken a tough, robust stance on terrorism.

The mood is now set for Arnab to indulge in his customary verbal jousting. He asks, “Who gained what, Mr Bhadrakumar? It is zero, a zero-sum game. Had lunch, gained nothing.”

Bhadrakumar begins to explain the finer aspects of diplomacy to Arnab: “First of all, diplomacy is about engagement. I can’t understand why when we are in such a strong position? Why we are afraid of engagement...There is slowly, steadily a critical mass which is accruing and it is unfair... for any logical person to be oblivious of that, unless you are congenitally negative toward the whole process...”

Arnab is sarcastic: “O.” (He actually means: O, really?)

Not willing to engage in a duel, Bhadrakumar lists the gains of Indo-Pak relations over the last three years, and adds, “... several steps have been taken also in the most recent period by Pakistan actually, ironically, which are indicative of...”

Arnab butts in: “Like what?”

Bhadrakumar: “For example, the MFN status, now you take the MFN status...”

Arnab repeats in a mocking tone: “MFN status, MFN status...”

Bhadrakumar retorts: “What do we say, we don’t want the MFN status...”

There’s no holding back Arnab, who speaks as he gesticulates agitatedly, “MFN status. How much are we going on the symbolism, Mr Bhadrakumar? My question is, why is South Block (which houses the Indian Foreign Office) emphasising that we have drawn this tremendous thing out of this visit. This beautiful relationship has now been struck, we have struck the right atmosphere, now we are about to do something tremendous. The fact is... you are talking to somebody who has no mandate. Mr Zardari has no political clout in the country. Why is the hype being created?”

Bhadrakumar says they are not here to discuss Zardari’s political status. Claiming to have repeatedly read the transcript of the briefing of Indian Foreign Secretary Ranjan Mathai, the former diplomat says he found nothing in it that should have anyone agitated.

Arnab: “It is over-interpretation. Isn’t it over-interpretation?”

But Swapan has raised his hand, and Arnab promptly turns to him. Swapan may want India to pursue a hard-line against Pakistan, but he is also a columnist who isn’t going to risk his reputation on falsehoods. He agrees with Bhadrakumar that Mathai’s briefing was marked by a certain degree of restraint, but points out that this sentiment was not echoed in the media. He cautions against undue raising of expectations, fearing it could lead India to compromise more than it is necessary. His prescription: Delhi should wait until such time as Pakistan is comfortable with its domestic situation.

Arnab asks the Pakistani guest, “I want to get a sense from Fauzia how the visit was covered in Pakistan. If it was a personal visit, he could have flown straight to Ajmer and back. He didn’t need to have lunch in Delhi.”

Fauzia says her piece, the gist of which is that Zardari has become extremely unpopular in the country, and he could have cut a better picture staying behind at the time soldiers and civilians had been buried under the avalanche in Siachen mountains.

It is just the opening Arnab needed to fire his next volley: “I worry, Mr Bhadrakumar, that maybe Mr Zardari in his last few months and weeks at the helm of affairs in Pakistan, is desperately trying to somehow go down into history to have done something. And... somebody has put a carrot in front of him, that something is moving an inch forward with India, without realising that neither people of India will accept such carrots nor will the people of Pakistan be swayed by it.” Arnab follows it with a jab that he possibly mistakes for a knockout punch, “Mr Bhadrakumar, you talked of MFN status. How can you compare MFN status with terrorism, terror-related issues, Hafiz Saeed?”

Bhadrakumar sniggers as he replies: “Of course, I never compared terrorism with MFN issue... Having dealt with Pakistan as a diplomat... I have never seen this attitude on the part of Pakistan to have a genuine economic cooperation with India. Now this is actually a litmus test…“

But Arnab isn’t willing to allow the former diplomat to stray away from the issue of terrorism. He keeps repeating: “Ansar Burney, Ansar Burney...” The reader is best advised to read aloud Bhadrakumar’s reply given below and holler, Ansar Burney, at every three-four words.

Picking up from where he was interjected, you catch up with Bhadrakumar saying, “... the litmus test of a certain willingness on the part of Pakistan to move forward. This is exactly the approach to Indo-Pak relations Delhi has been historically advocating. When Pakistan adopts... why are we afraid? ... And now Pakistan is agreeing with what we have been advocating ever since the Simla Accord, why are we chickening out... Take them at their face value...”

I count Arnab take Burney’s name six times. Finally, Arnab asks the Burney question: “... There are two cases. There is the case of Dr (Khaleel) Chishti, the Pakistani microbiologist. I think, since 1992, the case has been hanging on in Ajmer and he has been in jail. Ansar Burney has also put in a mercy petition for Sarabjit Singh to Asif Ali Zardari many years back, and he repeatedly keeps writing to Zardari. Why would we not pick up the Sarabjit issue? ... You don’t want to act on Hafiz Saeed, release Sarabjit, let the spirit of reciprocity hold... Chishti was discussed, why was Sarabjit not discussed?”

The point Arnab is making through the question needs explaining. Hafiz Saeed is viewed in India to have masterminded the massacre in Mumbai, and despite New Delhi’s demands, he has not been imprisoned or handed over to India. Sarabjit, by contrast, is an Indian who was given the death sentence for killing 14 people in bomb blasts he allegedly engineered in Multan and Lahore. Indians believe he is innocent, largely because the principal witness in the case retracted his statement, saying it was given under police pressure. Presumably, Arnab is making the point that Pakistan can compensate for its inaction against Saeed through the release of Sarabjit. Chishti’s case is decidedly different from Sarabjit’s – the former became embroiled a bloody family feud on his visit more than 20 years ago and was jailed (released and sent to Pakistan this week) for killing a person.

Back to the debate, you can see Bhadrakumar losing patience with Arnab. He remarks caustically, “I don’t know whether you were an insider and you know something that I don’t know. I don’t know whether they discussed at all, or whether they did not discuss at all...It is wrong on our part to jump to any conclusion...”

But you lose track of Bhadrakumar as Arnab interjects, “The government of Pakistan has been openly lobbying for Chishti’s release.”

Arnab repeats the question even as Bhadrakumar speaks. You get to hear the former diplomat as he raises his voice to say, “When the foreign secretary said that the issue of terrorism was discussed upfront with Pakistan - upfront is a very strong expression in the diplomatic medium...”

You miss out a portion of Bhadrakumar’s submission as Arnab asks: “Was Sarabjit discussed?”

But the former diplomat, battle hardened now, is not willing to relent: He tries to complete his piece: “... When the foreign secretary said that, I’d like to believe that terrorism was discussed certainly. But terrorism is not the be-all and end-all of the relationship also...”

Arnab interjects: “It is the stumbling block.”

You, once again, lose out on a portion of Bhadrakumar’s response, but, finally, hear him say, “Both are major regional powers. There is a regional context. There are many things happening in Pakistan, there are many things happening in India. We are both countries with national aspirations. We need to have a prospective view of how life is going to be in the medium and long term.”

Arnab, in the manner of a schoolboy, quips, “We don’t want to be stuck in photo ops.”

Bhadrakumar continues: “I can’t understand how you can just count the trees, and say this is the wood all about.”

Arnab lists a series of meetings between the Pakistani and Indian leadership over the last three years: “2009 Russia, 2009, Sharm-el-Sheikh, 2010 Thimpu, 2011 Mohali, 2011 Maldives, 2012, Seoul... What have these photo ops got either the people of Pakistan or India?”

Bhadrakumar is heard saying, “Of course...” But Arnab wants Swapan to answer the question, and Bhadrakumar keeps quiet, even though the anchor had taken a dig at him. Swapan, too, says there has been a discernible shift in Pakistan’s position regarding trade with India. But this shift hasn’t happened because India diluted its position on terrorism, but despite the fact that India “maintained that terrorism is the most important issue”. Swapan, therefore, says if progress in trade happens, it would be evidence that it “pays to stick to your position...”

Arnab asks: “Can you move this relationship on the basis of trade talks? Isn’t that fooling yourself?”

Perhaps Arnab hasn’t read the TOI’s website devoted to Aman Ki Asha. A joint statement issued by the editors of the Jang Group and the TOI editors has these lines, “We will need to reach out and pluck the low hanging fruit in the beginning before we aim higher. Issues of trade and commerce, of investments, of financial infrastructure... will be part of our initial agenda.” Give it time, Arnab, the TOI website suggests the better route to peace is to resolve less complicated issues before moving to those considered intractable.

Sorry for the minor digression. Swapan says trade can’t be the basis for moving the relationship; that the basis has to be a political one. He points to the lack of consensus between India and Pakistan on Afghanistan, and wonders whether Pakistan’s political class is in a position to “control its support” to the Taliban. He refers to Imran Khan’s alleged softness to the Taliban, as also to the perception that he is popular among certain sections of the cantonment. This twist in the debates sees Fauzia wade in – she refutes the charges against Imran, says India and Pakistan need to clear the air on many issues, including Kashmir, and they should sit together to evolve consensus on these in a candid manner.

Suitably armed, Arnab asks, “Why has it not moved, Mr Bhadrakumar... since Sharm al-Sheikh? Because of terror, because Pakistan has not acted on terror?”

Bhadrakumar is biting: “I think we have to be exceptionally myopic to be unable to see what happened in all this period since Sharm al-Sheikh...”

Arnab: “What has happened?”

Bhadrakumar says that as a joint secretary who dealt with the Pakistan division, he did not have a single day in his tenure during which there wasn’t bloodshed on the border. This hasn’t been the case since Sharm al-Sheikh, he points out, reiterating that even the graph of cross-border terror has registered a dip. He says, “Alright... there is an infrastructure of terror...”

But Arnab’s voice drowns out Bhadrakumar’s. He is citing Prime Minister Singh’s statement in Seoul in March, but you understand neither till Bhadrakumar gets the better of the anchor in the slanging match to say, “Why are you afraid if I want to say something? Give me as much time as you want to give others.”

Arnab: “I want to ask you a counter-question...”

Bhadrakumar: “What is your counter-question?”

The counter-question isn’t really a question. Arnab cites the statement the Indian Prime Minister had made in Seoul following a meeting with his Pakistani counterpart on March 22. Singh had said he could think of visiting Pakistan if there was something “solid”, something India and Pakistan could celebrate. Bhadrakumar says he agrees with the prime minister’s position, but he also adds a caveat, arguing that he favours the European model of diplomacy – leaders there meet over the weekend even though they don’t have an agreement to sign.

Bhadrakumar adds, “Why should there be a Siachen Agreement, why should there be a Sir Creek Agreement for our PM to meet Mr Gilani.”

Arnab is now apoplectic: “I am not even talking about Siachen Agreement or Sir Creek. I am talking about Hafiz Saeed. If I mention Hafiz Saeed, you will say MFN. I mention Hafiz Saeed.”

Bhadrakumar: “Hafiz Saeed has come up...”

Arnab: “It is not good enough to come up.”

They are now speaking simultaneously, and it becomes extremely difficult to decipher them in the din. As the decibel level goes down, you hear Bhadrakumar say that Saeed has become an issue because of the intervention of a third party, essentially referring to the bounty the United States had announced on him days before Zardari flew to India. Anyway, he says, “Saeed is not the be-all end-all of Indo-Pak relations... Since the India foreign secretary has said that the terror issue was raised upfront... and in that context they have discussed Hafiz Saeed, I don’t see the problem...”

Arnab mocks, “Mr Bhadrakumar, come on, just before leaving Lahore, Zardari said, ‘My stance on Saeed is not different from my government’s. My visit is religious...” Bhadrakumar now sees an opportunity to make a sally and interjects, even as you hear Arnab say: “He (Zardari) is avoiding the issue.”

Bhadrakumar: “Be sensible, you mean to say the president of the country should be having a difference of opinion with his government on certain issues in its relationship with India. Don’t be funny...”

Arnab: “It is not about being funny. My question to you is that had the same incident happened, had 200 Pakistanis been killed in cold blood by terrorists sent from India, would an Indian president be able to go have lunch, call it a personal visit, shake a few hands, and fly back. That’s the fundamental question: What would have been the public discourse in Pakistan then?”

Bhadrakumar wants to answer the question, but Arnab’s preference is Swapan. “Let us get another view,” Arnab says. But Bhadrakumar has taken to imitating Arnab’s style. He exploits a momentary pause in the debate to butt in, “We have a relationship here involving two countries which have killed each other over and over for six decades and you are talking about 200, it is 2000, it is 20,000 in all kind of situations.”

Arnab: “You are playing down 26/11.”

Bhadrakumar: “Does this mean you don’t try to normalise relationship?”

Arnab: “Let us hear the other side. A lot of people think 26/11 can’t be brushed aside.”

Swapan reiterates what has already been said – the timing of Zardari’s visit was inappropriate, that many Pakistanis don’t consider him to be fit to lead the country. But the debate has already lost its edge. Bhadrakumar is not going to speak, and Arnab readily agrees with Swapan when he says India and Pakistan need to discuss, in a frank and open manner, the fundamental issues dogging the two countries. Fauzia is the last to speak – she sees value in photo-ops because these inspire hope in people who desire peace. There are several private initiatives, she adds, mentioning Aman Ki Asha as one such example.

Now that you have read Arnab, glance at some of these lines culled from the joint statement of the editors of the Jang Group and The Times of India. “In this perennial season of inertia and zero-sum calculations prejudices continue to fester, stereotypes are entrenched and myth replaces reality.”

Try telling this to Arnab.

Another paragraph says, “The media in India and Pakistan speaks directly to the hearts and minds and stomachs of the people. It can do so by shaping the discourse and steering it away from rancour and divisiveness.”

Did I hear you say: Let Arnab sit at the steering wheel of Aman Ki Asha?

The editors definitely didn’t have Arnab in mind at the time they wrote these lines in the joint statement: “The media can begin the conversation where a plurality of views and opinions are not drowned out by shrill voices. It can cleanse polluted mindsets and revive the generosity of spirits, which is a distinctive trait of the Subcontinent. It can help cool the temperature and wean away the guardians from fortified frontiers.”

Oh, really? Obviously, the TOI bosses haven’t heard the Times Now editor-in-chief closely. The TOI-Jang statement further adds, “A surge of goodwill and flexibility on the part of civil society and the media will push these (external) forces back by denying them the raw material that manufactures hate.” We know Arnab is an amiable, well-meaning Indian who happens to head a TV channel entangled in the business of attracting eyeballs. Perhaps the media partners on the Aman Ki Asha bandwagon want to run with the hare and hunt with the hound, create a brand image and yet get the eyeballs of those who are votaries of muscular, demented nationalism.

The writer is a Delhi-based journalist ]]> Pakistan ajtr http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/pakistan/36435-arnab-goswami-there-hope-aman-ki-asha.html DNA exclusive: Nothing new about Pak’s latest missile, scientists tell http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/pakistan/36433-dna-exclusive-nothing-new-about-pak-s-latest-missile-scientists-tell.html Fri, 18 May 2012 07:44:59 GMT *DNA exclusive: Nothing new about Pak’s latest missile, scientists tell PM - India - DNA... DNA exclusive: Nothing new about Pak’s latest missile, scientists tell PM - India - DNA
,
.
Scientists of the Bangalore-based National Institute of Advanced Studies (NIAS), closely monitoring the development of nuclear weapons and missiles in India’s immediate neighbourhood, have concluded that the Hatf IV Shaheen 1A missile recently test-fired by the Pakistan establishment had almost the same capabilities of the earlier Shaheen 1 and was hardly an improvement of the previous weapons system.

Contesting the claim made by Islamabad that it was an “upgraded” and “improved” version of its existing intermediate range ballistic missile, the scientists have forwarded a note to the Prime Minister’s Office saying that they did not notice much improvement in its capabilities. Pakistan had gone ahead with the test soon after India launched its long range Agni-V missile which can reach targets at a distance of 5,000 km.

Significantly enough, the report hints at the possibility that the Hatf-IV Shaheen-1A missile might have been tested only as a response to India testing the long range Agni V. The scientists could not trace any major technological development in the missile which would have necessitated this experiment. The suggestion is that the April 25 launch carried out by Pakistan was virtually needless and was prompted by the need to make a statement of belligerence.

These scientists carried out their research under the International Strategic and Security Studies Programme (ISSSP) of the NIAS and made their inferences after having tracked precisely 40 ballistic missile tests carried out by Pakistan since 1998. They have been monitoring the various launches of Ghauri, Shaheen 1/1A, Ghaznavi, Abdali and Shaheen 2 missiles which Islamabad has been touting with much fanfare.

In the note, the NIAS says: “Information on the launch including an image of the missile was put out by the Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR) of Pakistan. The news release claimed that the Hatf-IV Shaheen-1A Weapon System as an improved version of Shaheen-1 with improvements in range and technical parameters.”

Using the image of the missile put out by Pakistan, the ISSSP carried out an evaluation of Pakistan’s capability and analysed whether any new developments could be inferred from this launch to substantiate the claim of range improvement. The scientists concluded,“A comparison of the April 25th image with earlier images...shows no significant change in the length of the missile (11.5 m to 11.6 m) or any change in the re-entry part of the missile.”

In fact, the scientists have relied on various Shaheen 1 images of October 2002, March 2004 and November 2006 to compare the existing data with those of the latest launch on April 25. The study shows that the “operational flight length” of all these missiles is almost the same varying between 11.43 m to 11.62 m. The report says, “There are no changes evident in the stage configuration and the main aerodynamic fins at the end of the missile and the exhaust look similar. The overall warhead length is comparable with the other images...”

The only minor changes, which the report finds are that the forward part of the re-entry vehicle is shorter (the length in the April 2012 launch is 1.6 m compared to 2.3 m in the earlier launches) and the re-entry vehicle in the recent launch has no stabilising fins (the earlier flown configurations were equipped with a set of four fins).

According to the report, the changes seen are minor and are not inconsistent with some improvements in the re-entry vehicles including its control and avionics systems. There may be some reduction in the weight of the re-entry vehicle. “However, they do not appear to be greatly significant... and do not have much impact on the missile range.”

The report further states:“Our assessment of the range of Shaheen 1 was 673 km for a launch from Islamabad in a south eastern (Azimuth 135 degrees) direction with a 1,000 kg re-entry vehicle . We do not find any evidence from the image put out by Pakistan to change this assessment. Longer range is however possible if Pakistan has reduced the missile throw-mass to below 1,000 kg.”

This particular study suggests that the latest Pakistani missile test does not cause too much worry to the Indian establishment. There was an anticipation of such a tit-for-tat launch. Now that the data suggests that it was basically old wine in new bottle with minor tinkering, the Bangalore-based monitoring agency appears to be satisfied.+ ]]> Pakistan JAISWAL http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/pakistan/36433-dna-exclusive-nothing-new-about-pak-s-latest-missile-scientists-tell.html <![CDATA['Osama planned major Pak attacks before death']]> http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/pakistan/36411-osama-planned-major-pak-attacks-before-death.html Thu, 17 May 2012 21:51:14 GMT 'Osama planned major Pak attacks before death' - Hindustan Times

Al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden had planned to mount indiscriminate attacks on the Pakistani soil before his killing in a covert US raid in Abbottabad, documents seized by the Americans from the slain terrorist's compound in the Pakistani garrison city have suggested.

The CIA shared intelligence about possible al Qaeda attacks inside Pakistan when officials of the two countries met to explore the way forward in resetting bilateral ties, the Dawn newspaper reported quoting its sources.

The information was "based on documents seized by US Navy SEALs during the raid on Osama bin Laden's compound" in the garrison town of Abbottabad in May last year.

Some details of the intelligence "revealed that before being killed in the May 2 raid, bin Laden, along with Ayman Al-Zawahiri... and other senior leaders of the terror outfit had planned to mount indiscriminate attacks on Pakistani soil," the daily reported.

The report further said there were "conflicting reports about the shared intelligence."

One unnamed participant of a meeting said CIA deputy director Michael Morrell had presented a dossier to Pakistani officials while another claimed the US had provided "just a tip about what al Qaeda had been planning to do in Pakistan" without related details that could help put the jigsaw together.

The report further said it was not clear whether the CIA intended to identify bin Laden's "support network within Pakistan with the help of shared intelligence or wanted to rebuild the much-needed mutual trust for moving forward."

The US embassy on Thursday issued a special message that said American diplomats and citizens in Pakistan had been asked to be on alert in the run-up to the first death anniversary of bin Laden on May 2.

Intelligence cooperation, especially the relationship between the CIA and the ISI, had "formed the bedrock of Pakistan-US ties till last year's events derailed the bilateral relationship," the report noted.

Al-Zawahiri took over as al Qaeda chief about a month after bin Laden's death.

Pakistan has denied assertions by US officials that elements of the Pakistani security establishment may have sheltered bin Laden after he moved to Pakistan from Afghanistan in 2002.

The CIA has been sharing some of the information gleaned from the intelligence "treasure trove" recovered from bin Laden's compound with spy services like Britain's MI-5 and MI-6 and others but has never shared details with Pakistan "for fear of it being compromised."

This was the first time that the CIA shared such information with Pakistan, the Dawn reported.

During a joint news conference on Thursday with Pakistani foreign secretary Jalil Abbas Jilani after talks at the Foreign Office, US special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan Marc Grossman stressed on counter-terror cooperation.

The two sides jointly need to make an effort "to counter terrorism and other extremist groups. One of the issues we talked about this morning was how to deal with this challenge together," he said.

The two sides set up groups of experts to discuss counter-terrorism, reopening of NATO supply routes and reimbursements to Pakistan under the US Coalition Support Fund.

Family deported
Osama bin Laden’s family — comprising three widows and 11 children — left Pakistan for Saudi Arabia on Friday morning after being deported from the country.

Once outside Pakistan, the family could reveal details about how the world’s most wanted man was able to hide in Pakistan for years, possibly assisted by elements of its powerful military and spy agency. (Reuters) ]]> Pakistan Son of Govinda http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/pakistan/36411-osama-planned-major-pak-attacks-before-death.html Pakistan Lost Its Chance For Security http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/pakistan/36405-pakistan-lost-chance-security.html Thu, 17 May 2012 18:56:32 GMT *Pakistan Lost Its Chance For Security* (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/05/17/pakistan_lost_its_chance_for_security_114180.html) ... Pakistan Lost Its Chance For Security

WASHINGTON -- As America begins to pull back its troops from Afghanistan, there's one consequence that gets little notice but is likely to have lasting impact: Pakistan is losing the best chance in its history to gain political control over all of its territory -- including the warlike tribal areas along the frontier.

Pakistan has squandered the opportunity presented by having a large U.S.-led army just over the border in Afghanistan. Rather than work with the U.S. to stabilize a lawless sanctuary full of warlords and terrorists, the Pakistanis decided to play games with these outlaw groups. As a result, Pakistan and its neighbors will be less secure, probably for decades.

This is a catastrophic mistake for Pakistan. Instead of drawing the tribal areas into a nation that finally, for the first time since independence in 1947, could be integrated and unified, the Pakistani military decided to keep the ethnic pot boiling. It was a triumph of short-term thinking over long; of scheming over strategy.

America has made many blunders in Afghanistan, which will have their own consequences. But U.S. problems are modest compared to those of Pakistan, which nearly 65 years after independence still doesn't have existential security as a nation. Like most big mistakes people make in life, this is one that Pakistan's military leaders made with their eyes wide open.

The G-8 and NATO will hold summit meetings in the coming days, and announce the exit strategy from Afghanistan. Fortunately, President Obama is planning a gradual transition, with at least 20,000 U.S. troops remaining until 2024, if necessary, to train the Afghan army, hunt al-Qaeda and steady Afghans against the danger of civil war.

But what can Western leaders say when it comes to Pakistan? Basically, the Pakistanis blew it. By playing a hedging game, they missed a moment that's not likely to return, when a big Western army of well over 100,0000 soldiers was prepared to help them. Instead, Islamabad used the inevitability that America would be leaving eventually as an argument for creating a buffer zone that was inhabited by a murderous mélange of the Taliban, the Haqqani network and other Pashtun warlords.

Yes, it would have been hard to bring under Pakistani law the rebellious badlands known as the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. I have a shelf full of books describing how the process of pacification eluded the British raj and was gingerly handed over to the new government of Pakistan like a bag of snakes. But hard is not impossible -- especially when you have modern communications and transport, and the most potent army in history ready to help.

What comes through reading these old books is how long the problem has persisted. A 1901 British "Report on Waziristan and Its Tribes" lists the tribes, clans and sub-clans the British were paying off more than a century ago through their political agents rather than risk a fight with these stubborn warriors. After their disastrous Afghan wars, the British decided that payoffs made more sense than shoot-outs -- a decision the Pakistanis have repeated ever since at the price of permanent insecurity.

The notion of the tribal areas as a warrior kingdom impenetrable to outsiders has a romantic "Orientalist" tone. I was disabused of it in 2009 when I met a group of younger tribal leaders who had gathered in Islamabad to tell U.S. special envoy Richard Holbrooke that the region needed economic development, good governance and less hanky-panky from the central government. In a move that embodied everything that's wrong with the Pakistani approach, these brave young men were intercepted on the way home by the Inter-Services Intelligence and quizzed about why they had dared talk to the farangi.

Surely the most foolish move the Pakistanis made was to compromise with the terrorist Haqqani network, which operates from its base in Miran Shah, a few hundred yards from a Pakistani military garrison. This was like playing with a venomous cobra -- something the Pakistanis seem to imagine is an essential part of regional realpolitik. No, you kill a cobra. If the ISI had been up to the task, it would have had some formidable snake-killing allies.

The Pakistanis lost a chance over the past decade to build and secure their country. It won't come back again in this form. That's a small problem for the U.S. and its allies, but a big problem for Pakistan. What a shame to see a wonderful nation miss its moment so completely. ]]> Pakistan ajtr http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/pakistan/36405-pakistan-lost-chance-security.html US to fund railway infrastructure http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/pakistan/36403-us-fund-railway-infrastructure.html Thu, 17 May 2012 18:45:42 GMT *US to fund railway infrastructure* (http://dawn.com/2012/05/16/us-to-fund-railway-infrastructure/) KARACHI, May 15: *United States Consul General... US to fund railway infrastructure

KARACHI, May 15: United States Consul General William Martin signed an agreement providing for Rs. 56 million to Premier Mercantile Services (PMS) for expert assistance to facilitate the acquisition and operation of a fleet of locomotives on the Karachi-Lahore railway line.

CG Martin, on behalf of the US Trade and Development Agency, along with Captain Haleem Siddiqui of PMS inked the agreement that will enable the private sector company to help Pakistan’s rail system handle the growing volume of cargo between Lahore and Karachi, a press release said.

“The initiative is central to improving the capacity of one of Pakistan’s most important trade corridors and promoting continued economic growth. To remedy a shortage of properly maintained locomotives, Pakistan Railway has agreed to allow PMS to deploy and operate a fleet of locomotives using PR’s existing rolling stock and railway infrastructure. The assistance will also provide PMS with an assessment of future freight volumes, financing requirements for the project, and other technical assistance,” the release stated.

Speaking on the occasion, CG Martin stated that the “United States remains committed to partnering with the Pakistani transportation sector,” because of its importance in supporting economic growth in the country, while also “increasing and strengthening Pak-US commercial ties.”

The US Trade and Development Agency aims to create sustainable infrastructure and economic growth in partner countries.

Brian McCleary, Commercial Counselor, US Embassy Islamabad, and Aasim Siddiqui, MD, Marine Group of Companies, were also present on the occasion. ]]> Pakistan ajtr http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/pakistan/36403-us-fund-railway-infrastructure.html Pakistani-Canadians: Falling below the poverty line http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/pakistan/36395-pakistani-canadians-falling-below-poverty-line.html Thu, 17 May 2012 14:52:51 GMT *_Pakistani-Canadians: Falling below the poverty line_* (http://dawn.com/2012/05/16/pakistani-canadians-falling-below-the-poverty-line/) Murtaza... Pakistani-Canadians: Falling below the poverty line

Murtaza Haider

Pakistan-born immigrants are the new face of poverty in urban Canada. The Canadian census revealed that 44 per cent of Pakistan-born immigrants fell below the poverty line making them the second most poverty prone group of immigrants in Canada.

While they may project an aura of opulence during their visits back home, their life in Canada, however, is often full of struggle and frustration. Thousands of Pakistani trained engineers, doctors, and PhDs are driving taxis or are working as security guards in large cities. In fact, one in three taxi-drivers in Canada was born in either India or Pakistan. Several others are unemployed thus becoming a burden on Canadian taxpayers.

The latest Census data for income for 2005 revealed that Pakistan-born immigrants reported the second highest incidence for the low-income cut-off, a proxy for poverty line in Canada. In comparison, only 18 per cent of India-born immigrants in Canada reported being a low-income person or belonging to a low-income economic family. Immigrants born in the United Kingdom, Portugal, Italy and Germany reported the lowest incidence of poverty in Canada.

Source: 2006 Public Use Microdata File, Statistics Canada.

Unlike in the Middle East where the Arab governments do not allow assimilation of migrant workers, the Canadian government and the society to a large extent does not create systematic barriers that may limit the immigrants’ ability to succeed and assimilate in Canada. This is not to suggest that immigrants face no barriers at all in Canada. They in fact do. For instance, Pakistan-trained doctors cannot practice medicine without completing further training in Canada. The shorter duration of medical training in Pakistan necessitates the additional certification for doctors. Engineering graduates from Pakistan, however, face no such barrier because the engineering curriculum and the duration of training in Pakistan is similar to that in Canada.

Despite the opportunities (and constraints), Pakistani-Canadians have not prospered as much as immigrants from other countries have. In 2005, wages earned by Pakistan-born immigrants were on average 70 per cent of the wages earned by those born in Canada. In comparison, wages earned by the India-born immigrants were 86 per cent of the wages earned by Canadians. At the same time, immigrants born in America earned 20 per cent more in wages than those born in Canada. Similarly, UK-born immigrants also reported on average higher wages than that of Canadian-born.

Source: 2006 Public Use Microdata File, Statistics Canada.

Because of lower wages, the Pakistan-born immigrants reported as one of the lowest home-ownership rates. Only 55 per cent of Pakistan-born immigrants reported owning their homes. In comparison, 75 per cent of the India-born immigrants owned their homes. At the same time, while only 12 per cent of the India- and Philippines-born immigrants had never worked in the past, 22 per cent of the Pakistan-born immigrants in Canada reported never being in the workforce.

The difference in wages, home-ownership rates, and employment rates between immigrants from India and Pakistan extend beyond the economic spheres. For instance, Pakistani-born immigrants live in large-sized families. Whereas only 13 per cent of India-born immigrants live in households of five persons or more, 44 per cent of the Pakistan-born immigrants live in households with five or more people. Given the lower wages, high unemployment rates and rental units, Pakistan-born immigrants experience severe crowding at homes where the number of residents per room is perhaps the highest owing to the large family sizes.

Given similar cultural endowments, education, and language skills, it is important to explore why Pakistan-born immigrants in Canada have lagged behind their Indian counterparts. The Indian diaspora is much larger in size and has been established in Canada for over a longer period, which has allowed immigrants from India to benefit from the social networks required to establish oneself in employment markets.

While immigrants from Pakistan lack the social networks necessary for success with employment, I would also argue that they suffer from a self-imposed identity crisis. After arriving from Pakistan, many male immigrants feel threatened by the Canadian liberal values, which empower their children and women. Suddenly the head of the household cannot dictate the way he did in Pakistan. Instead of embracing the change that empowers their families, several male immigrants end up in a hostile standoff with their families that sometimes lasts for decades. At the same time, religious leaders, which are almost always imported from back home to serve in mosques in Canada, preach orthodoxy to the parish, further confusing the struggling males.

With turmoil at home and bleak employment prospects outside, Pakistan-born male immigrants struggle with the decision to stay in Canada or return to Pakistan. Children and wives are often shipped back to Pakistan for prolonged periods while the males continue struggling in the job market. While their children see themselves as Canadians, the Pakistan-born male immigrants spent decades figuring out how to cope with their hyphenated identity, i.e., Pakistani-Canadian.

The limited success of (mostly Asian and African) immigrants in the economic spheres and their modest assimilation in the mainstream Canadian culture has prompted the right-wing groups to launch campaigns against immigration to Canada. While opponents of immigration are mostly naïve and their recommendations to reduce immigration border on lunacy, the fact remains that huge changes in the Canadian immigration policies are already taking place. In Saskatchewan, for instance, the provincial government on May 2 has changed the law that now prohibits immigrants from sponsoring their extended family members unless they secure a “high skill” job offer before arrival.

Since 2001, Pakistan has lost the most in its share of supplying immigrants to Canada. Pakistan was the third largest source of immigrants to Canada in 2001 supplying 6.1 per cent of the total immigrants. However, by 2010 Pakistan’s share of immigrants declined by 71 per cent. Pakistan is no longer even in the top 10 sources of immigrants for Canada. At the same time, the Philippines experienced a 153 per cent increase in its share of immigrants making it the biggest source of immigrants to Canada in 2010.

Source: Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

While there is no shortage of applicants in Pakistan, it is hard to establish the precise reason for the declining number of immigrants. It could be that the dismal performance of Pakistan-based immigrants may have prompted the government to reduce the intake from Pakistan. It may also be true that the exponential increase in violence and militancy in Pakistan may have made the task of verifying credentials and identifying future citizens much more difficult.

Over the next 50 years Canada will need millions more immigrants. The current and expected fertility rates in Canada suggest that immigration is the only possible way of ensuring enough workers needed for economic growth and to keep solvent Canada’s security net. Pakistan-born immigrants had the chance to excel in Canada and pave the way for future generations of enterprising immigrants. Instead, Pakistan-born immigrants became the face of Canada’s urban poverty. Their dismal performance in Canada and the spread of religious fanaticism back home will most likely further reduce immigration from Pakistan ]]> Pakistan http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/pakistan/36395-pakistani-canadians-falling-below-poverty-line.html Indian judges ganwar: Chishty http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/pakistan/36383-indian-judges-ganwar-chishty.html Thu, 17 May 2012 12:06:42 GMT *Indian judges ganwar: Chishty* (http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-05-16/india/31725466_1_indian-judiciary-ajmer-judicial-custody) ... Indian judges ganwar: Chishty

Quote:

JAIPUR: Dr S M Khalil Chishty, who has returned home to Pakistan late Tuesday after spending about 20 years in Ajmer, including in jail as a convict, was embroiled in a fresh controversy. Few hours after the Supreme Court ordered his release from jail and allowed him to go back to Pakistan last Thursday, a Hindi news channel showed him ridiculing the Indian judiciary during a conversation.

Based on the telecast, Ajmer lawyer Devendra Singh Chauhan filed a petition on Monday in a fast track court accusing Chishty of scandalizing Indian judiciary. The court will hear the petition on May 28 to decide if the case is admissible.

The telecast showed Chishty saying the Indian judiciary was replete with ill-informed (ganwar) and uneducated people, which delayed disposal of cases. The Pakistani virologist was critical of the lower judiciary, which he alleged, could not decide his case in 20 years.

On Tuesday, Chishty released a statement saying he has high regard for the Indian judiciary and he had no intentions to demean the judicial system. "I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to all those concerned over some remarks that were made by me during an interview after my release from prison. I wish to clarify that I did not mean to be disrespectful to the Indian judiciary, I am a law abiding man with utmost respect for judiciary. If my remarks hurt anyone, please accept my deepest apology," Chishty said in the statement released after reaching Pakistan.

Chishty came for a wedding to Ajmer on April 9, 1992. During an altercation on April 19, 1992, one Syed Mohammad Idris died. Chishty was one of the accused in the case.

Since then, he was not allowed to move out of Ajmer. He was in judicial custody and released on bail after 15 days. On January 23, 2011, he was convicted and handed a life sentence. Last Thursday, the SC allowed him to return to Pakistan on humanitarian ground.

]]> Pakistan ajtr http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/pakistan/36383-indian-judges-ganwar-chishty.html The grass eaters of Bakistan http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/pakistan/36377-grass-eaters-bakistan.html Thu, 17 May 2012 08:04:38 GMT The grass eaters of Bakistan Nadeem F. Paracha | 14 mins ago “We will fight (Hindia) for a thousand years!” Declared chairman of the... The grass eaters of Bakistan

Nadeem F. Paracha | 14 mins ago

“We will fight (Hindia) for a thousand years!” Declared chairman of the Bakistan Beables Barty (BBB), Zulfikar Ali Bruto. A couple of years later he was in Hindia trying to negotiate the release of 90,000 Bakistani prisoners of war.

Becoming the Prime Minister after the East Bakistan debacle in 1971 AD, Bruto decided to enter into a nuclear arms race with Hindia after the Hindian government, led by a closet witch, Hindra Gandhi, decided to eradicate poverty in Hindia by spending billions of rupees on building a nuclear bum.

“We will eat grass if we have to (to build our own bum)!” Bruto now declared, while having his favorite dish, Chicken malai tikka with roghni naan.

A couple of years later he was hanging from the gallows.

But the beoble of Bakistan who were regularly having the next best thing (tree bark), decided to instead support the prospect of having halal steak promised by Bruto’s pious general, Ziaul Bin Qasim Bin Ghaznavi Bin Ghori Bin Handlebar Moonch.

Of course, there was no such thing as a halal steak; in fact according to the dictates of Zia’s ulema, it was haram for common beoble to have steak because the whole idea smacked of atheistic communism.

The ulema insisted that only military beoble and rich beoble and fat religious beoble could have steaks (albeit halal) because Hindian soldiers were largely vegetarians and worshiped cows.

Zia agreed and put grass back on the common beoble’s menu that now included Pakistani grass, American hay, Chinese bush, Congolese banana leaves and tree bark.

All these were made halal when the great Kingdumb of Saudi Arabia sprinkled the holy waters of Zamzam on the grass – or so it claimed.

When asked by a nosy Jew/Zionist/Reptilian western reporter why he executed Bruto if grass was again to become the staple food for all common Bakistanis, Ziaul replied that the grass Bruto was offering was not being grown according to the Shariah.

“You see,” said Zia, “Balkistan was created in the name of the military … I mean, religion. My religion. Bakistan was created by the great Muslim warrior, diplomat, swordsman, horse breeder and infidel killer, Khalid Bin Walid, as the world’s first modern Islamic caliphate.”

“But that doesn’t answer my question,” said the nosy fool of a reporter; “wasn’t the country created by Muhammad Ali Jinnah?”

“No,” Zia replied, “Jinnah created Pakistan – not Bakistan. I hope you understand this.”

Though the Zia caliphate had banned the sale of alcohol (especially in mouthwashes and deodorants), he allowed the smoking of grass as long as it enhanced creativity and enlightened the mind (also called the Fried Brain Syndrome).

This act gave birth to a generation of creative and enlightened patriotic scholars (fried brains) who insisted that their hallucinations were not hallucinations but deep insights into the workings of the cosmic and quantum conspiracies against the Mulsim ummah.

It is from this generation of cosmic warriors and fried brains (a compliment, mind you), that great scholars like Zaid-ul-Che Bin Hunk Hamid, Dr. Shahid Doom, Shaheen Sepoy, Sangsar Abbasi, Dr. Aamir Hamakat, Moby Lookman Dick and Ali Azmat-ul-Haq Al-Axel–ul-Rose emerged.

These are the wise men that today are shining through like bright examples for young Bakistanis to follow and fry their brains for the sake of keeping Bakistan safe from the evil eye of Sauron, SpongBob Square Pants and from those who advocate a ban on cow slaughter.

After successfully hooking the populace on eating and smoking grass, Zia continued feeding all sorts of steaks to his generals and scientists, fattening them so they could build a fat nuclear bum that he could ask his fat generals to throw on the fat generals of Hindia.

But, unfortunately, millions of lives on both sides of the divide were spared (what a waste), when the Pakistan military’s C-130 flying camel on which Zia was riding was shot down by a terrorist group of liberal fascists led by Najam Sethi (aka Najam The Jackal).

Only the camel’s hump could be retrieved from the wreckage. It was stuffed with grass and put in the Pakistan Hall of Humps of Fame right beside the stuffed hump of Muhammad Bin Qasim’s camel.

Zia’s glorious, pious and manly caliphate was replaced by the rule of a woman. Yes, a woman!

She was the daughter of Z A. Bruto. Her name was Benazir Bruto. And she didn’t like grass. It was an outrage!

So she was thrown out by the gallant remnants of Zia led by General Hamid Bull and Ghulam Miswaq Khan and replaced with Zia’s blue-eyed, figurative blond, Mian Sipah-e-Nawazul Sharif.

Though wanting to become Ameerul Momineen (the plentiful commander of the poverty-stricken faithful), he too was thrown out for corruption when he wished to get a hair transplant on his head instead of his face. It was an outrage!

As the fat generals continued playing silly rotating games with Nawazul and Bruto, the people continued to chomp on grass.

But one day the fat scientists, led by lover of North Korean opera, Dr. Kim Qadeer Godzilla, finally managed to make the fat nuclear devise that Z A. Bruto and then Ziaul had worked so hard for. But it was Nawazul who got to explode it.

The rise of Ram Raj in Hindia in the late 1990s and subsequently, of the Bharatiya Bum Party led by Utter Bihari Veggie-Pie, saw Hindia conduct five nuclear explosions (to alleviate poverty and make India shine from the brilliant glow of the beautiful mushroom cloud the blasts produced).

Nawazul was enjoying his second stint as PM when the Hindians test-exploded their bums.

Nawazul replied by test-exploding not one, not two, not three but 6 bums! A fact he has repeated approximately 6000 times in his last six rallies.

He then celebrated the event by allowing common Bakistanis to feast on the grass and tree leaves in the gardens of his lush Raiwind state.

But while Nawazul was making well-fed goats out of the beoble, his steak-loving generals decided to add some radiation to their steaks. This made them even fatter and feel like superheroes, enough to want to conquer Hindia.

Nawazul’s general, General Puppu Musharraf, secretly sent groups of Bakistani military men dressed in sheep’s clothing deep into those parts of the Islamic Republic of Kashmir that were occupied by the forces of Bollywood.

Nawazul was livid. He wasn’t told of the plan: “I am livid!” He shouted. “I wasn’t told of the plan.”

As Bakistani soldiers, posing as beefy mujahidin in sheep’s clothing were fighting it out with the forces of Bollywood being led by Dev Anand and the ghost of Dark Lord of the Sith, Amresh Puri, Nawazul was livid. He wanted the invasion to stop: “I am livid” he shouted. “I want the invasion to stop.”

Also livid was US president, Billy Gaga. “I am livid!” He told Nawazul. “You guys won’t even be able to afford grass after this!”

It was a disaster. Not only did the Bakistani soldiers-cum-mujahideen-cum-sheep-to-the-slaughter retreat from the Islamic Republic of Kashmir, they were pounded by loud Bollywood group dances and terrible item numbers.

Nawazul was removed in a military coup by General Puppu Musharraf.

He was livid.

After getting bored with Hindia (now that Bakistan too had a bum), general Puppu began playing a double-neck-guitar with the gringos.

But the Bakistani beoble had begun to ask why they had to eat grass now that Bakistan had made the bum.

Perturbed by such unpatriotic questions, General Puppu began fattening some beefy extremists while eliminating some skinny ones just so the gringos would keep his army fat.

To do this it was vital that the beoble continued to eat grass.

“For national interest,” he said. “Fat terrorists good, skinny terrorists bad. Strategic depth, baby”.

This silly out-of-its-depth strategy that someone saw fat terrorists helping Bakistan conquer Afghanistan and maybe even the whole of Central Asia, continued even after General Puppu was forced to resign by hordes of lawyers suffering from peptic ulcers.

They had blamed the grass that was being sold to the beoble by the Puppu regime as the main cause of their ulcers. They were led in this crusade by Batman.

Batman had been banished by General Puppu when he wanted to issue an Ajjinomoto notice against Puppu because he thought he was being served steak that was of a lesser quality than the one being served to Puppu.

His Robins in black coats, however, thought it was all about the equable and judicious distribution of good quality grass. They were lived. It was an outrage.

After the 2008 AD election, the BBB, now under the leadership of the captain of the Swiss mountaineering team, Asif Ali Zardari Bruto, returned to power.

Promising people better quality grass, Zardari’s regime was denounced as being treacherous and beyghairat (dishonorable) when it accepted the gringo aid package under the Kerry-Lugar-Alpha-Beta-Gamma Bill.

The Bill advised the regime to share at least some of the steaks served to the military with at least some of the beoble at least. At least. Lived. Outrage.

“How dare they?” Thought a general, while gazing at his navel and listening to old Malika Pukraj songs on an antique gramophone. And then, as if magically and overnight, this thought became the slogan of a number of ghariratmand (honorable) media persons, opposition parties and supermen and shaheens.

After the Hindians, gringos became our newest enemies. Enemies of our ghairat and sovereignty. They had to be defeated with our sense of ghairat, our TV anchors, national songs, friendly fat terrorists and most of all, our proud grass chomping masses.

Grass eating has become a national duty for the common citizens of Bakistan. Anybody promising anything better is, of course, to be looked at with suspicion and a proudly-paranoid-patriotic disposition. Otherwise lividly and an outrageously.

The grass eaters of Bakistan | DAWN.COM ]]> Pakistan Galaxy http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/pakistan/36377-grass-eaters-bakistan.html Can Pakistan’s Neighbors Help Deal with Pakistan? http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/pakistan/36375-can-pakistan-s-neighbors-help-deal-pakistan.html Thu, 17 May 2012 07:49:52 GMT *Can Pakistan’s Neighbors Help Deal with Pakistan?* (http://www.nbr.org/publications/element.aspx?id=595) Mahin Karim PDF Get Permissions... Can Pakistan’s Neighbors Help Deal with Pakistan?
Mahin Karim
PDF Get Permissions
Although the United States and NATO have announced their intentions to draw down their forces in Afghanistan, the question of maintaining some presence in the region to prevent the re-emergence of terrorist-friendly forces and preserve regional stability is tied up with questions of state instability in Pakistan. The recent downturn in U.S.-Pakistan relations only adds to the complexity of this issue. A year after the U.S. raid and subsequent killing of Osama bin Laden on Pakistani territory, domestic grievances in both countries toward the other continue to plague the relationship, bringing into question not only its future but perhaps also its continued value.
Despite these challenges, the United States is understandably reluctant to pull the plug on its relationship with Pakistan. The prospect of state failure in a nuclear power poses a significant geopolitical and security challenge not just to U.S. interests but also to peace and stability in South and Central Asia. Democratic transition in Pakistan remains a weak political process, hampered by the often contradictory interests of a strong and deeply entrenched military establishment with ties to religious extremists. Efforts of civilian-led administrations for institutional reform and improved relations with India have often been sabotaged by a powerful military-intelligence establishment defined by an anti-Indian agenda.
Yet while concerns over Pakistan’s future stability drive an imperative within U.S. policy corridors to “re-set” the relationship, perhaps the solution to the conundrum lies instead with Pakistan’s neighbors. India, China, and Iran share vulnerable strategic borders with Pakistan, and risk a spillover effect should Pakistan collapse. All three have a strong stake in containing any instability emerging from Pakistan, and in some respects may be in a better position than the United States to influence the country’s future.

The Rise of India and China
India’s rise as an Asian power and its aspirations to be a global player offer an intriguing opportunity. Recent trends in Indian relations with the smaller South Asian countries indicate a significant shift in New Delhi’s approach toward its neighborhood—as exemplified by improved relations with countries such as Bangladesh and Sri Lanka—from India’s historical role as a “big brother” to a renewed focus on regional integration and growth. This shift signals an awareness that India cannot assume its place on the global geopolitical stage without first resolving issues in its immediate neighborhood. Likewise, India’s smaller neighbors realize that closer ties with New Delhi allow them to benefit from India’s economic growth and ascension as a global power.
While India-Pakistan hostility poses the biggest challenge in resetting traditional South Asian antipathies, there are hopeful signs of change on that front. For once, the political leadership in both countries seems committed to rebuilding the relationship, with a willingness to temporarily table the Kashmir issue in favor of promoting greater economic integration as well as stronger cultural and people-to-people ties. The decision by the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) to grant India most-favored nation status, despite the military establishment’s objections and the party’s precarious political status, and the Pakistan business community’s support of that move indicate a political will that India and the international community would do well to nurture. Pakistan’s powerful “shadow” establishment still has the potential to derail these efforts, as it has done in the past. But indirect intervention on this front by the United States and other international stakeholders may be helpful, providing both carrots and sticks to strengthen Pakistan’s civilian institutions against pressure from the country’s military.
India also offers the United States the potential to conduct quiet diplomacy with Pakistan’s western-flanking neighbor—Iran. While the United States may be reluctant to engage Iran on this issue, given its mistrust of Iran’s motives and conflicting priorities in Afghanistan, Central Asia, and the Persian Gulf, an unstable Pakistan is no more in Iran’s interests than it is in India’s or the United States’. India has good relations with Iran and is also invested in infrastructure projects that would connect India through Afghanistan to Iran’s Chabahar port, offering an alternative transit route to Central Asia. Rather than pressing New Delhi to curb its energy relations with Iran, the United States might consider letting the relationship be and testing India’s capabilities as a mature regional power. For India, this could be a unique opportunity to prove its aspiring “global power” mettle by first demonstrating its diplomatic credentials on a regional platform.
While Pakistan’s relationship with China is more complicated, there is the potential for quiet diplomacy there too. China continues to be influential in Islamabad and uses this position to indirectly provoke India. However, there are signs that Beijing increasingly shares U.S. and Indian fears about political instability in Pakistan. In recent years, Chinese officials have been more vocal in their condemnation of Islamabad’s failure to check militant groups in Pakistan suspected of provoking instability in western China, as well as over increased attacks on Chinese workers that threaten infrastructure investments in Pakistan. China has the very real capability to direct its influence toward containing Pakistan, if it chooses to do so. There are indications that it has quietly done so in the past—e.g., through back-channel disapproval of Pakistani military aggression against India. The withdrawal of U.S. and NATO forces from the region, and the realization that the United States will no longer foot the bill for regional stability, could compel Beijing to step up to the plate in dealing with Pakistan.

Policy Implications
The traditional antagonisms of South Asia present challenges as well as opportunities. U.S. assistance to Pakistan has yielded unsatisfactory dividends, and counterproductively contributed to increasing levels of anti-Americanism, which fuel Pakistan’s extremist elements and bolster the power structures of its “shadow” establishment. Perhaps it is time to let the region play a larger role in taking care of the problem. Rather than continue to throw good money after the bad, an alternative strategy that engages regional actors to deal with Pakistan may allow the United States to achieve its desired objectives in the region without necessarily bearing the costs.
India, China, and Iran have indirectly benefited from the West footing the bill for counterterrorism efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the detriment of the West’s—and in particular the United States’—public image. The withdrawal of U.S. and NATO forces will compel these countries to assume responsibility for ensuring security in their own backyard, and may offer opportunities for new security architectures that will indirectly benefit U.S. interests in Asia. Both India and China demand recognition as mature powers in the global geopolitical arena—let them demonstrate the behavior and responsibilities that go with great-power status.

Mahin Karim is a Senior Associate in Political and Security Affairs at The National Bureau of Asian Research. She can be reached at mkarim@nbr.org.
The NBR Analysis Brief provides commentary on the Asia-Pacific from leading scholars and experts. The views expressed are those of the author. ]]> Pakistan ajtr http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/pakistan/36375-can-pakistan-s-neighbors-help-deal-pakistan.html Pakistan air collision kills four pilots: police http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/pakistan/36373-pakistan-air-collision-kills-four-pilots-police.html Thu, 17 May 2012 07:34:55 GMT ISLAMABAD: Two Pakistan Air Force light aircraft collided mid-air on Thursday, killing four pilots on a routine training mission northwest of... ISLAMABAD: Two Pakistan Air Force light aircraft collided mid-air on Thursday, killing four pilots on a routine training mission northwest of Islamabad, police said.

It was the sixth Pakistan Air Force crash in seven months and the second in a week, raising concerns over the safety of its largely Chinese and locally made fleet.

The cause of the accident was not immediately clear.

One of the two-seater propeller Mushshak planes crashed on a house, injuring a girl and an elderly man, and the second fell in nearby fields in the Rashkai area, 160 kilometres (100 miles) northwest of the capital.

“Two Pakistan Air Force trainer aircraft collided mid-air. Four pilots were killed, two were trainee pilots and two were instructors,” district police officer Mohammad Hussain said.

“One of the aircraft crashed over a house, injuring a girl and an elderly man, and the second plane crashed in the fields.” Another police official, Hayatullah, who uses only one name, confirmed the casualties.

Last Friday, a fighter jet crashed near the southwestern town of Sonmiani but the pilot managed to eject safely.

The Pakistan Air Force has a fleet of Chinese aircraft including F-7PGs and A-5s, plus US-built F-16s and French Mirages. It recently acquired medium-tech JF-17, or Thunder jets, manufactured jointly by China and Pakistan.

Pakistan air collision kills four pilots: police | DAWN.COM ]]> Pakistan maomao http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/pakistan/36373-pakistan-air-collision-kills-four-pilots-police.html <![CDATA[Pakistan is a 'black hole' for US aid]]> http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/pakistan/36369-pakistan-black-hole-us-aid.html Thu, 17 May 2012 06:26:22 GMT WASHINGTON: US lawmakers of both Democratic and Republican parties have slammed the Obama administration's request for $2.4 billion for Pakistan, calling it a "black hole" where the US has "sunk" $24 billion over the last decade.

"Pakistan is like a black hole for American aid," Gary Ackerman, top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs panel on the Middle East and South Asia said during a hearing Wednesday.

"Our tax dollars go in, our diplomats go in - sometimes, our aid professionals go in - sometimes, our hopes go in, our prayers go in," he said. "Nothing good ever comes out."

Alleging that Islamabad continues to pursue its national interest at America's expense and that of its allies, Ackerman said: "Pakistan continues to shelter, directly support and sponsor terrorists."

"Officially acknowledging this indisputable fact might be grossly impolitic; but that doesn't make it less true. American standing in Pakistani public opinion is terrible and getting worse," he said.

Similarly Republican Dana Rohrabacher blasted US support for Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who he said was taking "marching orders" from Pakistan.

"We should cut Pakistan off of every cent because it has been used for evil purposes, including killing American troops," he said.

However, a State Department official testifying at the hearing suggested cutting off aid would be short-sighted.

"Our current discussions with the Pakistanis on how best to pursue our common interests will take time to resolve, and it's not easy right now to provide satisfying answers to some questions," Deputy Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Daniel Feldman said in written testimony.

But "the fact of the matter is, is that we've been able to kill more terrorists on Pakistani soil than just about any place else," he said citing President Barack Obama's words after the death of Osama bin Laden last May. "We could not have done that without Pakistani cooperation."

Pakistan is a 'black hole' for US aid - The Times of India ]]> Pakistan bhramos http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/pakistan/36369-pakistan-black-hole-us-aid.html <![CDATA[West missions in Pakistan get 'poison' mails]]> http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/pakistan/36363-west-missions-pakistan-get-poison-mails.html Thu, 17 May 2012 05:15:34 GMT Islamabad: Several Western embassies here on Wednesday received letters containing suspicious powder and threats to poison Nato soldiers in... Islamabad: Several Western embassies here on Wednesday received letters containing suspicious powder and threats to poison Nato soldiers in Afghanistan, Pakistan officials said.

Islamabad police chief Bani Amin said that embassies had received small packets containing black powder, which had been sent for laboratory analysis.

The letters said "poison" would be hidden in the Nato supplies should Pakistan decide to lift a nearly six-month blockade on supplies for American and Nato troops fighting the Taliban in neighbouring Afghanistan.

Senior Pakistani security officials said that the French embassy, and the Australian and British High Commissions had received suspicious packages.

"Embassies have received one sachet each. The problem is that it is in a meagre quantity and difficult even to test. It seems somebody has committed some mischief. We are sending it to a laboratory," Amin said.

Nato routes: West missions in Pakistan get 'poison' mails - The Times of India ]]> Pakistan Yusuf http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/pakistan/36363-west-missions-pakistan-get-poison-mails.html