Pakistan's Ideology and Identity crisis

[hit&run]

Forced out of Quetta by ethnic violence
An ethnic Hazara man is comforted by community members, after he arrived to the local hospital in Quetta to find a family member shot dead, May 6, 2011. Suspected Islamist militants on Friday opened fire on a group of Pakistani Shia in the southwestern town of Quetta, killing at least eight and wounding 15, police said, the first attack since the killing of Osama bin Laden in the country by US commandos. - Reuters Photo



KARACHI: Aly Khan fled Quetta city, provincial capital of the southwestern province of Balochistan, after several of his family members were attacked in inter-ethnic violence perpetrated by extremist groups, and moved to Islamabad to start a new life.

"It was a decision between choosing our lives or our homeland," he said. "Balochistan is our home, but we have been forced to leave the place where our elders have lived because of our sects. The Shia-Sunni conflict was exploited by Gen Zia ul Haq and later by the Taliban. The Wahabi elements have created so much terror. To save our lives, we left our home town."

Khan's relatives included a cousin who was a senior pathologist and was killed in 2009, and a professor who was attacked twice in 2005 and 2010. "Check the backgrounds of the victims and you will see that they were peace-loving citizens who were contributing to the society," he told IRIN. "They were doctors and professors, not warmongers."

Balochistan has been caught up in a nationalist insurgency for decades, with militant Baloch nationalist groups seeking autonomy for the region, and in the process targeting minority groups they believe do not support their thinking. Clashes have also occurred between militant Sunni Muslim groups and Shia Muslims over the interpretation of Islam.

On 6 May, six members of the Hazara Shia minority community were gunned down in an incident that the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LJ), an extremist sectarian Wahabi organization, later claimed responsibility for. On 18 May, another seven were gunned down, and once again the LJ claimed responsibility.

Last year, 65 Shias were killed in Quetta when a procession became the target of a bomb blast on 3 September. Two days earlier, a blast in Lahore killed 35 others. According to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan's report entitled State of Human Rights in 2010, 418 people were killed in various attacks on Muslim sects, including 211 in suicide bombings last year.

Over 200 Shia have been killed in Balochistan in the last three years, the report said "The Lashkar has given us the deadline to leave the province by 2012 and have warned of further attacks," said Awab.* "Even the police are helpless in this regard as they too have been under attack by these rogue elements."

Awab, an ethnic Hazara, is in the process of moving his family to Karachi. Seven members of his family, including a brother, an uncle and a cousin, were killed in last year's bombings.

Ethnic attacks on police

Contacted by IRIN, a senior official of the Balochistan police, who requested anonymity, said security had been tightened around Immambarhs (Shia mosques) and Shia graveyards for Friday prayers.

"We have been under attack not only by the separatists but also by the militant outfits," he said, adding that his colleague Deputy Inspector-General Wazir Khan Nasir had been targeted in April. "Though Khan luckily survived, we lost a constable.

"A number of our low-ranking policemen have also been targets as they belong to the Punjab Province, which the Balochs consider an enemy. How do I protect the Hazara Shia from Balochs and the Taliban, when my men can be hit and killed due to their ethnicity and no one will shed a tear because they are `Punjabis'?" he added.

A spokesperson for the Hazara Democratic Party, who preferred anonymity, said the increasing violence against members of his community was in part due to its relative wealth, but he noted that Balochistan had been experiencing conflict between the state and Baloch separatists for some time. "We paid the price when we lost our leader, Hussain Ali Yousafi, who was killed in 2008."

Balochistan has historically had a tense relationship with Pakistan's government, in large part due to issues of provincial autonomy, control of mineral resources and exploration, and a consequent sense of deprivation, according to Human Rights Watch (HRW).

Education hit

The violence has also affected education, according to HRW. In 2010 many teachers sought transfers, out of fear for their lives, further burdening what was already the worst educational system in Pakistan. At least 200 teachers and professors had already transferred from their schools to the relatively more secure provincial capital of Quetta or moved out of the province entirely since 2008.

The rights watchdog attributed the upsurge in violence to the 2006 assassination of the prominent Baloch tribal leader Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti and 35 of his close followers, and the murders of three prominent Baloch politicians in April 2009 by assailants believed to be linked to the Pakistan military.

The matter, according to Aly Khan, has been fuelled by religious differences. "Balochistan Province has Balochs and Pathans in the majority when it comes to ethnicity [while] Hazara are a minority," he said. "Then come the religious minorities. The Balochs and Pathans follow the Sunni sect, while most Hazara are Shias and most of these are residing Quetta.

"The Hazara and the Shias are a peaceful community and generally well settled," he added. "While earlier they were victims of kidnappings and robberies, now religious extremists threaten them."





Read more: Al-Qaeda, balochsitan, ethnic killings, ethnic violence, humanitarian issue, punjab, Sectarian violence, sectarianism pakistan, shia, Sunni, terrorism, unrest, wahabi

 

[Kunal Biswas]

What awaits in Heaven!



Not to be taken as a HATE vid, It just show how brainwashed followers follow such creeps ( he degrades women by calling them rotten. ) , and no doubt why the condition of woman have grown to such state in middle east specially in Pakistan and Afghanistan..

Posted By ASHISH67 At, MP.net..
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/member.php?75208-ASHISH67

 

[LurkerBaba]

Very strong language...

From Abbottabad to Worse
Hating the United States—which funds Islamabad's army and nuclear program to the humiliating tune of $3 billion a year—Pakistan takes its twisted, cowardly revenge by harboring the likes of the late Osama bin Laden. But the hypocrisy is mutual, and the shame should be shared.
By Christopher Hitchens"¢
Illustration by Barry Blitt

Salman Rushdie's upsettingly brilliant psycho-profile of Pakistan, in his 1983 novel, Shame, rightly laid emphasis on the crucial part played by sexual repression in the Islamic republic. And that was before the Talibanization of Afghanistan, and of much of Pakistan, too. Let me try to summarize and update the situation like this: Here is a society where rape is not a crime. It is a punishment. Women can be sentenced to be raped, by tribal and religious kangaroo courts, if even a rumor of their immodesty brings shame on their menfolk. In such an obscenely distorted context, the counterpart term to shame—which is the noble word "honor"—becomes most commonly associated with the word "killing." Moral courage consists of the willingness to butcher your own daughter.

If the most elemental of human instincts becomes warped in this bizarre manner, other morbid symptoms will disclose themselves as well. Thus, President Asif Ali Zardari cringes daily in front of the forces who openly murdered his wife, Benazir Bhutto, and who then contemptuously ordered the crime scene cleansed with fire hoses, as if to spit even on the pretense of an investigation. A man so lacking in pride—indeed lacking in manliness—will seek desperately to compensate in other ways. Swelling his puny chest even more, he promises to resist the mighty United States, and to defend Pakistan's holy "sovereignty." This puffery and posing might perhaps possess a rag of credibility if he and his fellow middlemen were not avidly ingesting $3 billion worth of American subsidies every year.

There's absolutely no mystery to the "Why do they hate us?" question, at least as it arises in Pakistan. They hate us because they owe us, and are dependent upon us. The two main symbols of Pakistan's pride—its army and its nuclear program—are wholly parasitic on American indulgence and patronage. But, as I wrote for Vanity Fair in late 2001, in a long report from this degraded country, that army and those nukes are intended to be reserved for war against the neighboring democracy of India. Our bought-and-paid-for pretense that they have any other true purpose has led to a rancid, resentful official hypocrisy, and to a state policy of revenge, large and petty, on the big, rich, dumb Americans who foot the bill. If Pakistan were a character, it would resemble the one described by Alexander Pope in his Epistle to Dr Arbuthnot:

Willing to wound, and yet afraid to strike.
Just hint a fault, and hesitate dislike:
Alike reserved to blame, or to commend,
A timorous foe, and a suspicious friend "¦
So well-bred Spaniels civilly delight
In mumbling of the game they dare not bite.

There's an old cliché in client-state relations, about the tail wagging the dog, but have we really considered what it means when we actually are the tail, and the dog is our goddam lapdog? The lapdog's surreptitious revenge has consisted in the provision of kennels for attack dogs. Everybody knew that the Taliban was originally an instrument for Pakistani colonization of Afghanistan. Everybody knew that al-Qaeda forces were being sheltered in the Pakistani frontier town of Quetta, and that Khalid Sheikh Muhammed was found hiding in Rawalpindi, the headquarters of the Pakistani Army. Bernard-Henri Lévy once even produced a damning time line showing that every Pakistani "capture" of a wanted jihadist had occurred the week immediately preceding a vote in Congress on subventions to the government in Islamabad. But not even I was cynical enough to believe that Osama bin Laden himself would be given a villa in a Pakistani garrison town on Islamabad's periphery. I quote below from a letter written by my Pakistani friend Irfan Khawaja, a teacher of philosophy at Felician College, in New Jersey. He sent it to me in anguish just after bin Laden, who claimed to love death more than life, had met his presumably desired rendezvous:

I find, however, that I can't quite share in the sense of jubilation. I never believed that bin Laden was living in some hideaway "in the tribal areas." But to learn that he was living in Abbottabad, after Khalid Sheikh Muhammed was discovered in Rawalpindi, is really too much for me. I don't feel jubilation. I feel a personal, ineradicable sense of betrayal. For ten years, I've watched members of my own family taking to the streets, protesting the US military presence in northern Pakistan and the drone strikes etc. They stood there and prattled on and on about "Pakistan's sovereignty," and the supposed invasion of it by US forces.

Well, what fucking sovereignty? What fucking sovereignty were these people "protecting"? It's bad enough that the Pakistani army lacks sovereignty over the tribal area and can't control it when the country's own life depends upon it. But that bin Laden was living in the Pakistani equivalent of Annapolis, MD "¦

You will notice that Irfan is here registering genuine shame, in the sense of proper outrage and personal embarrassment, and not some vicarious parody of emotion where it is always others—usually powerless women—who are supposedly bringing the shame on you.

If the Pakistani authorities had admitted what they were doing, and claimed the right to offer safe haven to al-Qaeda and the Taliban on their own soil, then the boast of "sovereignty" might at least have had some grotesque validity to it. But they were too cowardly and duplicitous for that. And they also wanted to be paid, lavishly and regularly, for pretending to fight against those very forces. Has any state ever been, in the strict sense of the term, more shameless? Over the years, I have written many pages about the sick relationship between the United States and various Third World client regimes, many of which turned out to be false friends as well as highly discreditable ones. General Pinochet, of Chile, had the unbelievable nerve to explode a car bomb in rush-hour traffic in Washington, D.C., in 1976, murdering a political rival and his American colleague. The South Vietnamese military junta made a private deal to sabotage the Paris peace talks in 1968, in order to benefit the electoral chances of Richard Nixon. Dirty money from the Shah of Iran and the Greek dictatorship made its way at different times into our electoral process. Israeli religious extremists demand American protection and then denounce us for "interference" if we demur politely about colonization of the West Bank. But our blatant manipulation by Pakistan is the most diseased and rotten thing in which the United States has ever involved itself. And it is also, in the grossest way, a violation of our sovereignty. Pakistan routinely—by the dispatch of barely deniable death squads across its borders, to such locations as the Taj Hotel in Mumbai—injures the sovereignty of India as well as Afghanistan. But you might call that a traditional form of violation. In our case, Pakistan ingratiatingly and silkily invites young Americans to one of the vilest and most dangerous regions on earth, there to fight and die as its allies, all the while sharpening a blade for their backs. "The smiler with the knife under the cloak," as Chaucer phrased it so frigidly. (At our feet, and at our throat: Perfectly symbolic of the underhanded duality between the mercenary and the sycophant was the decision of the Pakistani intelligence services, in revenge for the Abbottabad raid, to disclose the name of the C.I.A. station chief in Islamabad.)

This is well beyond humiliation. It makes us a prisoner of the shame, and co-responsible for it. The United States was shamed when it became the Cold War armorer of the Ayub Khan dictatorship in the 1950s and 1960s. It was shamed even more when it supported General Yahya Khan's mass murder in Bangladesh in 1971: a Muslim-on-Muslim genocide that crashingly demonstrated the utter failure of a state based on a single religion. We were then played for suckers by yet another military boss in the form of General Zia-ul-Haq, who leveraged anti-Communism in Afghanistan into a free pass for the acquisition of nuclear weapons and the open mockery of the nonproliferation treaty. By the start of the millennium, Pakistan had become home to a Walmart of fissile material, traded as far away as Libya and North Korea by the state-subsidized nuclear entrepreneur A. Q. Khan, the country's nearest approach (which in itself tells you something) to a national hero. Among the scientists working on the project were three named sympathizers of the Taliban. And that gigantic betrayal, too, was uncovered only by chance.

Again to quote myself from 2001, if Pakistan were a person, he (and it would have to be a he) would have to be completely humorless, paranoid, insecure, eager to take offense, and suffering from self-righteousness, self-pity, and self-hatred. That last triptych of vices is intimately connected. The self-righteousness comes from the claim to represent a religion: the very name "Pakistan" is an acronym of Punjab, Afghanistan, Kashmir, and so forth, the resulting word in the Urdu language meaning "Land of the Pure." The self-pity derives from the sad fact that the country has almost nothing else to be proud of: virtually barren of achievements and historically based on the amputation and mutilation of India in 1947 and its own self-mutilation in Bangladesh. The self-hatred is the consequence of being pathetically, permanently mendicant: an abject begging-bowl country that is nonetheless run by a super-rich and hyper-corrupt Punjabi elite. As for paranoia: This not so hypothetical Pakistani would also be a hardened anti-Semite, moaning with pleasure at the butchery of Daniel Pearl and addicted to blaming his self-inflicted woes on the all-powerful Jews.

This dreary story actually does have some bearing on the "sovereignty" issue. In the beginning, all that the Muslim League demanded from the British was "a state for Muslims." Pakistan's founder and first president, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, was a relatively secular man whose younger sister went around unveiled and whose second wife did not practice Islam at all. But there's a world of difference between a state for Muslims and a full-on Muslim state. Under the rule of General Zia there began to be imposition of Shari'a and increased persecution of non-Muslims as well as of Muslim minorities such as the Shiites, Ismailis, and Ahmadis. In recent years these theocratic tendencies have intensified with appalling speed, to the point where the state contains not one but two secret statelets within itself: the first an impenetrable enclave of covert nuclear command and control and the second a private nexus of power at the disposal of the military intelligence services and—until recently—Osama bin Laden himself. It's the sovereignty of these possessions that exercises General Ashfaq Kayani, head of the Pakistani Army, who five days after Abbottabad made the arrogant demand that the number of American forces in the country be reduced "to the minimum essential." He even said that any similar American action ought to warrant a "review" of the whole relationship between the two countries. How pitiful it is that a Pakistani and not an American should have been the first (and so far the only) leader to say those necessary things.

If we ever ceased to swallow our pride, so I am incessantly told in Washington, then the Pakistani oligarchy might behave even more abysmally than it already does, and the situation deteriorate even further. This stale and superficial argument ignores the awful historical fact that, each time the Pakistani leadership did get worse, or behave worse, it was handsomely rewarded by the United States. We have been the enablers of every stage of that wretched state's counter-evolution, to the point where it is a serious regional menace and an undisguised ally of our worst enemy, as well as the sworn enemy of some of our best allies. How could it be "worse" if we shifted our alliance and instead embraced India, our only rival in scale as a multi-ethnic and multi-religious democracy, and a nation that contains nearly as many Muslims as Pakistan? How could it be "worse" if we listened to the brave Afghans, like their former intelligence chief Amrullah Saleh, who have been telling us for years that we are fighting the war in the wrong country?

If we continue to deny or avoid this inescapable fact, then we really are dishonoring, as well as further endangering, our exemplary young volunteers. Why was the raid on Abbottabad so rightly called "daring"? Because it had to be conducted under the radar of the Pakistani Air Force, which "scrambled" its jets and would have brought the Black Hawks down if it could. That this is true is bad enough in all conscience. That we should still be submitting ourselves to lectures and admonitions from General Kayani is beyond shameful.

 

[hit&run]

In Pakistan's Punjab, a Christian can't present the provincial budget

By Abdul Manan

Published: June 7, 2011





Some PML-N MPAs object to faith of fellow party member Kamran Michael.

LAHORE:
Several provincial legislators in Punjab belonging to the ruling Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) have objected to Punjab cabinet member Kamran Michael presenting the budget on grounds that he is Christian, sources within the party told The Express Tribune.

Sources say PML-N leaders are in a bind trying to figure out who to assign the finance ministry portfolio before the budget is presented before the Punjab Assembly on June 10.

Several party members are reported to have objected to a Christian being given such a prominent position as that of delivering the annual budget speech and fear losing votes amongst some of their conservative, right-wing vote bank. The PML-N is already afraid of losing ground in its heartland of Punjab to other parties that have been making inroads in the province in recent months.

Michael had been given charge of the finance ministry in March, after the PML-N kicked out the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) from Punjab's ruling coalition. He replaced the PPP's Tanveer Ashraf Kaira, in addition to retaining his earlier portfolio of human rights and minorities affairs.

However, while Michael was minister in theory, in practise the position has been managed by Sardar Zulfiqar Khan Khosa, senior adviser to Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif, who was given charge of the finance and planning and division department for two months after the PPP was kicked out.

Sources say that Michael was forbidden from even contacting the finance secretary or the chairman of the planning and development department.

Michael holds the finance ministry as an "additional portfolio", which means that he is authorised to present the budget. However, he has not been assigned the ministry itself. Rule 136 of the Punjab Assembly Rules of Procedure requires the provincial budget to be presented by the finance minister or another minister who has been assigned his portfolio.

According to the rules of the Punjab Assembly, the residual powers of any unfilled portfolios in the provincial cabinet are transferred to the chief minister until a new minister is appointed. Shahbaz currently holds 20 portfolios himself, having failed to appoint cabinet ministers after kicking out the PPP from the ruling coalition.

Sources said that PML-N members have suggested that the "additional portfolio" for the finance ministry be given to Education and Excise Minister Mujtaba Shuja Rehman in order to avoid Michael presenting the budget. A final decision on the matter is expected to be taken at a party meeting on Tuesday (today).

Since the chief minister technically occupies the powers of finance minister, he could present the budget himself, without having to assign the portfolio to any other cabinet member.

Punjab Government spokesman Senator Pervaiz Rashid told The Express Tribune that Rehman is most likely to present the Punjab budget for fiscal year 2012.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 7th, 2011

 

[sukhish]

In Pakistan's Punjab, a Christian can't present the provincial budget

By Abdul Manan

Published: June 7, 2011





Some PML-N MPAs object to faith of fellow party member Kamran Michael.

LAHORE:
Several provincial legislators in Punjab belonging to the ruling Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) have objected to Punjab cabinet member Kamran Michael presenting the budget on grounds that he is Christian, sources within the party told The Express Tribune.

Sources say PML-N leaders are in a bind trying to figure out who to assign the finance ministry portfolio before the budget is presented before the Punjab Assembly on June 10.

Several party members are reported to have objected to a Christian being given such a prominent position as that of delivering the annual budget speech and fear losing votes amongst some of their conservative, right-wing vote bank. The PML-N is already afraid of losing ground in its heartland of Punjab to other parties that have been making inroads in the province in recent months.

Michael had been given charge of the finance ministry in March, after the PML-N kicked out the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) from Punjab's ruling coalition. He replaced the PPP's Tanveer Ashraf Kaira, in addition to retaining his earlier portfolio of human rights and minorities affairs.

However, while Michael was minister in theory, in practise the position has been managed by Sardar Zulfiqar Khan Khosa, senior adviser to Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif, who was given charge of the finance and planning and division department for two months after the PPP was kicked out.

Sources say that Michael was forbidden from even contacting the finance secretary or the chairman of the planning and development department.

Michael holds the finance ministry as an "additional portfolio", which means that he is authorised to present the budget. However, he has not been assigned the ministry itself. Rule 136 of the Punjab Assembly Rules of Procedure requires the provincial budget to be presented by the finance minister or another minister who has been assigned his portfolio.

According to the rules of the Punjab Assembly, the residual powers of any unfilled portfolios in the provincial cabinet are transferred to the chief minister until a new minister is appointed. Shahbaz currently holds 20 portfolios himself, having failed to appoint cabinet ministers after kicking out the PPP from the ruling coalition.

Sources said that PML-N members have suggested that the "additional portfolio" for the finance ministry be given to Education and Excise Minister Mujtaba Shuja Rehman in order to avoid Michael presenting the budget. A final decision on the matter is expected to be taken at a party meeting on Tuesday (today).

Since the chief minister technically occupies the powers of finance minister, he could present the budget himself, without having to assign the portfolio to any other cabinet member.

Punjab Government spokesman Senator Pervaiz Rashid told The Express Tribune that Rehman is most likely to present the Punjab budget for fiscal year 2012.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 7th, 2011

I just don't want to see pak beyond 2020.

 

[roma]

In Pakistan's Punjab, a Christian can't present the provincial budget

By Abdul Manan
Published: June 7, 2011

(not nec to requote the whole article )

to me this is the major difference between india and pak .

 

[Virendra]

Baloch interviewed by Najam Sethi
the real pakistan and india 3 - YouTube
Don't miss 3:30 to 6:15 ... specially 6 to 6:15

This one is a gem, no need to slice and dice it is Hasan Nisar.
Hassan Nisar slaps Laal Topi Zaid Hamid - YouTube

Regards,
Virendra

 

[jyoti rathi]

What awaits in Heaven!


Not to be taken as a HATE vid, It just show how brainwashed followers follow such creeps ( he degrades women by calling them rotten. ) , and no doubt why the condition of woman have grown to such state in middle east specially in Pakistan and Afghanistan..

Posted By ASHISH67 At, MP.net..
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/member.php?75208-ASHISH67

Sir , I think those who says "rotten" for women they dont know that if behind a success she can be their then even behind "barbadi"..............the history of all these muslim women can be traced back to the independence era, we don't have to do anything to destroy pak because with the present situation they will kill themselves and our job easy.

they never had, dont have and will not have anything original of their own other then sick mentality.

 

[Blackwater]

Pakistan sucksssss.....



pakistan suckssss.......:laug h:

 

[Blackwater]

Harsh Truth About Pakistan- Reality Hurts

 

[Blackwater]

Aukat of pakistan and there people

 

[hit&run]

 

[hit&run]

Merey mutabiq - 23rd october 2011 part 1 - YouTube

follow rest on YT

 

[SPIEZ]

This can only happen in Pakistan

 

[hit&run]

 

[hit&run]

 

[hit&run]

Pakistani analysts/day dreamers and gossip on American, Israel, India and their famous nuclear ''ahsasey''.

 

[Virendra]

Hassan Nisar in one of his very blunt and critical reviews of Pakistan and its twisted religious obsessions.
This one is an eye wash for many. The host is finding it difficult to stay in his seat

Regards,
Virendra

 

[agentperry]

this is all because only 5 % of pakistanis are university graduate. surprisingly out of 20000 prostitutes in pakistani city of lahore- 74% are university graduate too. with 2/3 or clients from army and policee

 

[agentperry]

Hindu businessman abducted and killed

QUETTA: A 24-year-old Hindu businessman, abducted for ransom about 50 days ago, was found dead near the Western Bypass near Quetta, the police said on Tuesday.
The tragedy began on October 22, when Ravi Kumar was abducted at gunpoint by four armed men, from his godown in Satellite Town. Three days later, the kidnappers contacted the family and demanded Rs20 million.
"We asked them to keep their demand within justifiable limits, so that we could pay," said Kumar's uncle Dr Mehar Chand, who serves as the general secretary of the Pakistan Peoples Party's minority wing. After negotiations, the kidnappers agreed to halve the ransom.
On Monday evening, the family told the kidnappers they were ready to pay up but in the morning, the police informed them that three bodies needed to be identified at Civil hospital. One of them was Kumar's.
Dr Mehar Chand quoted the doctors as saying that his head and chest were crushed with some heavy object.
"I'm sorry to say that minorities are not safe in this country," said Dr Chand. He was also critical of the "lukewarm" response he received from the DIG and deputy commissioner of Quetta when he had asked for their help.
Police officials, however, said that Kumar's family was unwilling to accept their help and wanted to resolve the issue on their own, using personal contacts.
Ultimately, police officials said, Kumar was executed by his captors when the ransom was not furnished.
Despite the setback, the police are investigating the case for possible clues that may help in tracking down the culprits.
Kumar was married and had a three-year-old son.
Meanwhile, Human Rights Commission Pakistan, Balochistan chapter, expressed its serious concern over the increasing incidents of kidnapping for ransom, particularly targeting minorities. "Hindus have stopped sending their children to school since they have become vulnerable to kidnapping for ransom," said Tahir Hussain, chairman HRCP Balochistan.