Tag Archive | "India"

Pakistan Army troops wearing the standard sand...

'Dead Reckoning' redefines history of 1971

Pakistan Army troops wearing the standard sand...
Image via Wikipedia

‘Dead Reckoning’ redefines history of 1971

Sarmila Bose’s book ‘Dead Reckoning’: This ground-breaking book chronicles the 1971 war in South Asia by reconstituting the memories of those on opposing sides of the conflict. 1971 was marked by a bitter civil war within Pakistan and war between India and Pakistan, backed respectively by the Soviet Union and the United States. It was fought over the territory of East Pakistan, which seceded to become Bangladesh. Through a detailed investigation of events on the ground, Sarmila Bose contextualises and humanises the war while analysing what the events reveal about the nature of the conflict itself. The story of 1971 has so far been dominated by the narrative of the victorious side. All parties to the war are still largely imprisoned by wartime partisan mythologies. Bose reconstructs events via interviews conducted in Bangladesh and Pakistan, published and unpublished reminiscences in Bengali and English of participants on all sides, official documents, foreign media reports and other sources. Her book challenges assumptions about the nature of the conflict, and exposes the ways in which the 1971 war is still playing out in the region.

Product code: 455601, ISBN13: 9781849040495, 288 pages, paperback
Published by C Hurst & Co Publishers Ltd in 2011

SARMILA BOSE is Senior Research Fellow in the Politics of South Asia at the University of Oxford. She was a political journalist in India and combines academic and media work. She was educated at Bryn Mawr College and Harvard University.

Ms. Sharmila Bose in her paper entitled “Losing the Victims: Problems of Using Women as Weapons in Recounting the Bangladesh War”  paints a picture of the Pakistani military as a disciplined force that spared women and children. She writes:

During my field research on several incidents in East Pakistan during 1971, Bangladeshi participants and eyewitnesses described battles, raids, massacres and executions, but told me that women were not harmed by the army in these events except by chance such as in crossfire. The pattern that emerged from these incidents was that the Pakistan army targeted adult males while sparing women and children.

She also quotes the passage from the Hamoodur Rahman Commission Report that I cited above to support her assertion that so many rapes could not have occurred. 20,000-34,000 could not have raped 200,000 to 400,000 women in the space of nine months.

She states in the introduction:

That rape occurred in East Pakistan in 1971 has never been in any doubt. The question is what was the true extent of rape, who were the victims and who the perpetrators and was there any systematic policy of rape by any party, as opposed to opportunistic sexual crimes in times of war.

To try to bolster her argument that the Pakistani forces in Bangladesh could not have raped so many women, she claims:

The number of West Pakistani armed forces personnel in East Pakistan was about 20,000 at the beginning of the conflict, rising to 34,000 by December. Another 11,000 men — civil police and non-combat personnel — also held arms.

For an army of 34,000 to rape on this scale in eight or nine months (while fighting insurgency, guerrilla war and an invasion by India), each would-be perpetrator would have had to commit rape at an incredible rate.

There are numerous reports out there now which negates the well established beliefs. The declassified US reports, Indian military officers account, Pakistan military officers account, General Niazi’s memoirs, Sharmila Bose, Hamoodurahman commission report.

Pakistan Military officers fought hard. Many foreign correspondents speak well of their bravery. It is the bravery of a Muslim soldier that Indian Military got tough fight. These Pakistani Mard-e-Momin fought so hard that they had almost regained the control of East Pakistan from the dirty hands of Mukt-Bahini. When India saw this, She then started the military action which resulted in the fall of Dhaka.

Then  Mujib showed his true colors after the formation of Bangladesh with his BAKSAL party. How he became authoritative and usurped democracy is not a secret anymore. He was going to make Bangladesh part of India that he was killed timely by the Pakistani military officers (yes those Bengalis who never gave up allegiance to Pakistan. I stand in honor for them).

References:
1) Watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULpCroezFrY
2) Read “RAW in Bangladesh by ZainulAbidin (an ex-Mukti Bahini member) on 1971 war.
3) Read Blood and tears by a Pakistani writer about 1971 war.
4) Check the website of Federation of American Scientist on 1971 war
5) Read “East Pakistan Tragedy” by L.F. Rushbrook Williams.

Posted in UncategorizedComments (2)

The South China Sea

The rising storm in the South China Sea

Bharat and China have gone to war over an unresolved MaCmohan Line. Bharat has announced the deployment of 50,000-60,000 troops and nuclear-capable combat planes along this border.In response to Bharat’s military buildup, Beijing has taken notice and challenged Delhi. China and India share about 2,000 kilometers of border, and the boundary has never been formally delineated.

China has objected to the Bharati presence in the South China Sea. Bharat on the backs of American wishes is insistant upon drilling in the disputed islands controlled by Vietnam.

The South China Sea

The rising storm in the South China Sea. Image via Wikipedia

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was questioned about Dehi’s motives in its presence in Vietnam.  Chinese leader Wen Jiabao accused Delhi of being persent in disputed territory. The Bharati premier explained that Delhi’s interests were “purely commercial”. It meekishly said that “sovereignty claims must be settled according to international law.” The statement is comical–Bharat has never adhered to the principles that Dr. Sngh was talking about.

The two had met at the venue of the East Asia summit. Beijing had dliberately tried to keep the disputes in the South China Sea out of the purview of both Asean and East Asia Summits.

Wen, in a not-so-veiled reference to Delhi, warned “outside forces” from getting embroiled in the South China Sea dispute. China has had disputes with Vietnam, and actually went to war with the former French colony which was the victim of decade long war which it faught against the USA.

Wen told Asean leaders. “The dispute which exists among relevant countries in this region over the South China Sea is an issue which has built up for several years…It ought to be resolved through friendly consultations and discussions by countries directly involved. Outside forces should not, under any pretext, get involved”.

In a provacative move, Delhi is exploring for oil in areas Beijing claims as its territory. Of course Bharat is egged on by Washington. US President Barack Obama, attending his first East Asia Summit here, asked PM Singh that this gathering “can be the premier arena for us to be able to work together on a wide range of issues: maritime security or nonproliferation.” 

Bharati trade is expected to touch $70 billion this year– though most if it are imports of raw material from Bharat.  Beijing accuses Dehi of playing a “Taiwan card” to keep it off balance.

A Chinese area called Southern Tibet (which the Bharatis call Arunachal Pradesh) is one of the root causes of the conflict between the two neighbors. Both counries have had cross-border firing in Ladakh and Sikkim. Delhi fears that China may act to preempt, or respond to Dalai Lama’s successor. Bharat fears the fact that Beijing may deploy the People’s Liberation Army to occupy contested territory along the Sino-Indian border. This is exactly what happened in 1962. Such a build-up could create a risk of military conflict between the now nuclear-armed Asian countries.

India has always harbored a grudge over China’s all-weather friendship with Pakistan. Dr. Singh briefed Wen on his meeting with Pakistani premier Yousaf Raza Gilani during the SAARC summit in Maldives. Bharat is trying to pressure China in withdrawing its support for economic activities in Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. While Delhi was seeking a quid-pro-quo, China has no plans in stopping the massive development projects that have already started in Pakistan.

C. Raja Mohan writing for Foreign Relations puts it bluntly: “When there is relative tranquility in Tibet, India and China have reasonably good relations. When Sino-Tibetan tensions rise, India’s relationship with China heads south.”

Chinese Global Times has warned Bharat in “India’s Unwise Military Moves,”  “India’s current course can only lead to a rivalry between the two countries.  India needs to consider whether or not it can afford the consequences of a potential confrontation with China.”  An affiliate of the People’s Daily published a Chinese language article on June 12 which translates to “India is a paper tiger and its use of use will be trounced, say experts.”  It is a provocative publication and a threat to Bharat. It revives the language of Mao, when he would refere to the US as an imperialist paper tiger.

Posted in China CA, Current Affairs, India CA, PakistanComments (17)

Maharaja of Kashmir, Hari Singh (1895- 1961)

October 27th Black Day: A day that lives in infamy

Maharaja of Kashmir, Hari Singh (1895- 1961)
Maharaja of Kashmir, Hari Singh (1895- 1961) Wikipedia

October 27, each year, is remembered as the Black Day across the length and breadth of Pakistan and the entire State of Jammu and Kashmir for the reason that on this inauspicious day the Indian occupational forces landed in Srinagar that started a chain reaction of events, which has continued to haunt the subcontinent to this very day.

On this day, in 1947, the festering tragedy of Kashmir was born; an act of aggression that has consigned the prospects of normalising the Indo-Pak relations to the realm of perpetual animosity, which has already led to two wars, in addition to the Kargil skirmishes of 1999.

Even when the partition of India and Pakistan had been formalised and announced on August 14, the princely State of Jammu and Kashmir – ruled by Maharaja Hari Singh – remained in a state of limbo. It was one of the 584 princely states, which – with the lapse of paramountcy of the British Crown in August – had to make the choice of acceding either to India or Pakistan. Kashmir’s predominantly Muslim population, their contiguity to Pakistan and the layout of major communication infrastructure made its accession to Pakistan a natural corollary of the unfolding events. However, given Nehru’s pathological fixation over Kashmir, strengthened by Lord Mountbatten’s machinations, this was not to be.

The invasion of Kashmir was on the cards, even as the boundary between India and Pakistan was being carved out through an award by Sir Cyril Radcliffe. When the Boundary Award was announced its most controversial decision dealt with the awarding of the Gurdaspur district to India, despite its Muslim majority and contiguity to the Pakistani territory. It is now certain that Nehru by manipulating his intimate contacts with Lord Mountbatten contrived through the Boundary Award to provide a land route to India for its ultimate occupation of Kashmir. In an interview with the Daily Telegraph on February 1992, Radcliffe’s Secretary, Christopher Beaumont, confirmed that the Boundary Award was manipulated by Mountbatten at the behest of Nehru. Developing the Gurdaspur access enabled India to effectively link up with the Kashmir Valley through a land route and be able to support large-scale operations in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

Nehru now sought two politico-military objectives: First, to force the Maharaja to sign an instrument of accession and secondly to wrest Kashmir by force. The plan envisaged that if the situation threatened to spiral out of control, legal niceties could be set aside and troop landing could proceed regardless of other factors. As it was, the landing of the Indian forces in Srinagar on October 27, 1947, took place without the signing of any instrument of accession. On that fateful day, the State of Jammu and Kashmir existed in the same constitutional limbo of insecure independence that it had enjoyed since the partition of India, following the lapse of the British paramountcy.

As October progressed, the public unrest and communal strife paralysed the Maharaja’s administration. There was a rebellion in the state forces, which revolted against Hari Singh’s authority. More so, they were also joined by some pathan tribesmen voluntarily. The Indians started a propaganda campaign to un-nerve the Maharaja by projecting this local threat as a systematic invasion by the tribesmen from Pakistan along the Jhelum Valley Road.

As the situation in Jammu and Kashmir deteriorated, Lord Mountbatten, as Governor General of India, called a meeting of the Defence Committee to assess the situation on October 25. The committee, under his chairmanship decided to immediately send V. P. Menon, along with senior army and air force commanders to land in Srinagar the same day, reconnoitre the ground situation and advise the Maharaja to abandon Srinagar for the safety of Jammu across the Banihal pass.

Mountbatten also ordered the British Commander of the Indian forces to assemble a fleet of 10 transport aircraft for an airlift operation after 48 hours for landing troops in Srinagar. Menon’s visit of October 25 so unnerved the Maharaja that he packed all his valuables and left for Jammu by road in the morning of October 26, without signing any instrument of accession. Mountbatten chaired another meeting of the Defence Committee on October 26 and ordered the landing of the first battalion of the Sikh regiment in Srinagar on October 27, even though no evidence exists of any instrument of accession having been secured thus far. On the same day, at about 0900 hours, the Sikh regiment was airlifted from Gurgaon and landed at the deserted Srinagar Airport.

The State of Pakistan, struggling to find its feet in its infancy, was stunned by the Indian aggression. So on October 27, Quaid-i-Azam asked General Douglas Gracey, acting Commander in Chief, to send the Pakistani troops to Kashmir. But the General refused, saying that he would need the approval of Field Marshal Claude Auchinleck, who held supreme command over the Indian and Pakistani forces.

Auchinleck flew to Lahore on October 28 with the line that sending the Pakistan army into Kashmir would amount to a formal declaration of war and that if Pakistan went to war he would withdraw all the British officers serving in the Pak Army. It was many months after that Pakistan was able to respond militarily in Kashmir, and when the ceasefire occurred on January 1, 1949, the Kashmir issue stood internationalised, by no one other than Nehru, who himself sought to take the matter to the United Nations for resolution and promised to hold a plebiscite in Kashmir.

Thus, in the context of the Indo Pak relations, October 27 truly stands out as a ‘Black Day’, constituting the tragic benchmark that sealed all prospects of peace and prosperity in the subcontinent. Such a monumental crime, however, has extracted from India its price in flesh and blood. Sixty-three years might have passed since the aggression, yet the Indian Held Kashmir has known no peace and the demand for Azadi – loud and strong – is making it impossible for the Indian leadership and its puppets in Kashmir to know any peace. The writer is a freelance columnist.
Recalling the Black Day of Kashmir
By Momin Iftikhar | Published: October 27, 2010

Posted in UncategorizedComments (2)

Indian Intelligence Agency RAW insignia logo

Bharat should disband RAW: No peace talks without Kashmir solution

Akhand Bharat remains a dream of many in the Bharati establishment. There is documented proof that Jawhaarlal Nehru sent letters out in the 40s proclaiming that “Pakistan” would be reabsorbed. Even so called “secular” leaders like Indira Gandhi wanted it. Modi, Adhvani and tackery hold a large vote in the Lok and Rajha Sabha. The RSS and the BJP of course proclaims it from the highest roof tops and the biggest loud speaker. Sites like Hinduunity.org are there for all to see.

All these proclamations are not just against Pakistan–they are also against Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim, China, Lanka, Maldives and Mayanmar. All neighbors hate Bharat. This does not bode well for the future of Bharat as a regional power. No world power can rise to prominance without peace with her neighbors.

Unless and until this concept of “partition” is dumped into the dustbin of history, Bharat and South Asia will remain the only island of penury in South Asia. Bharat’s meager success in the past decade does not guarantee future robust growth. Nor does it bode for military ascedency or regional hegemony.

If Bharat wants to grow it has apologize for the Mukti Bahni, repudiate the Rakhi Bahni, and stop the policy of taking over weak neighbors like Sikkim and Bhutan. Bharat also has sto pits policy of exproting terror to its neighbors; Tibet & Zinjiang in China, LTTE in Pakistan, terrorists in Nepal, militants in Maldives, Chakmas in Bangladesh, and the TTP in Pakistan.

  • How can you have peace with a country that is bent upon your destruction?
  • How can you have peace with a country that contantly tries to break you down?
  • How can you have peace with a country that against you at every international forum?
  • How can you have peace with a country whose entire media is arrayed against you?
  • How can you have peace with a country that constantly spews venom against your founding fathers and your leaders?
  • How can you have peace with a country that occupies your territory?
  • How can you have peace with a country that stops your water and then floods your villages?

Pakistan first: The devastating affects of appeasing India and kowtowing to the USA

Have you ever read a positive story about Pakistan on any Bharati media outlet? ever?

India intelligence: “‘the aim of RAW is to keep internal disturbances flaring up and the ISI preoccupied so that Pakistan can lend no worthwhile resistance to Indian designs in the region.”

Have ever read anything positive from Delhi about Paksitan–ever?

THE PAKISTANI RESILIENCE IN THE FACE OF THREATS: Mountbatten, Nehru, Indira, Kruschev, Johnson, Carter, Kissinger (Nixon), Gobachov, Clinton, Armitage (Bush), Karzia (Bush and Vajpayee/Sing) have all threatened Pakistan: The Pakistanis are used to it…so what else is new?!! Pakistan’s Nuclear Program should be seen in the backdrop of these threats.

Indian Intelligence Agency RAW insignia logoRAW at War-Genesis of Secret Agencies in Ancient India

“‘the aim of RAW is to keep internal disturbances flaring up and the ISI preoccupied so that Pakistan can lend no worthwhile resistance to Indian designs in the region.”

‘Pakistan should be so destabilized internally that it could not support the ‘Kashmir cause even morally, diplomatically or politically’

Background

Sun Tzu the art of warEspionage, euphemistically called the second oldest profession of the world finds a mention in the Indian Vedas, one of the most – if not the most – ancient of the human texts. References to espionage are also discernible in the ancient civilizations of Egypt, Babylon, Assyria, Greece and China. The Chinese sage Sun Tzu is considered by European scholars to be the first to study and analyse the whole question of espionage on scientific lines, and to set it down in a text book Ping Fa, The Art of War. This view is, however, not substantiated by cogent facts since there is ample proof of the greater antiquity and soundness of the system of Secret Services enunciated by the early Indians.

VarunaVaruna, one of the chief gods of the Vedic pantheon is considered to be a forerunner of Secret Services.

MaghaMagha, one of the most erudite and lucid poets and pragmatic thinkers, unequivocally asserted that statecraft cannot exist without the assistance of espionage. He writes:-

‘The statecraft in which even a single step is not taken in contravention of the science of dandaniti {(i.e. the law of danda (the rod)} which provides decent living (to the officers) and in which liberal grants are given in recognition of services rendered, does not shine to advantage without (the employment of ) spies, just as the science of grammar does not shine without Papasa Bhasya (the introductory portion of Patanjali’s Mahabhasya), though it is provided with Nyasa (a commentary of that name) which strictly follows the words of the Sutras (of Panini), a good vrtti (explanatory work) and an excellent Bhasya (advance work of explanation, discussion and criticism)’. – (Sisupala – vadha, 2.112)

Secret Agencies in ancient India were not conceived of as an instrument of oppression but as a tool of governance. Secret agents were considered as ‘eyes of the king’.

Chan AkyaIndian history illustrates that ancient Indians had gained great expertise in this secret art. The techniques and operational methods adopted by them were highly advanced, and can be usefully emulated today. From the spasas of Varuna, the fore-runners of the modern globe-trotting spies (the etymological affinity of the two terms is noticeable) to Chanakya’s final manifestation of this art in the Arthasastra which is in fact a systematic codification of a wide variety of scattered information copiously found in the Epics, – the Mahabharata and the Ramayana – the Puranas and literary works of Bhasa, Kalidasa, Magha and Bana; and the Tamil Sangam literature, transcends unprecedented heights in this discipline.

US attack over Afghanistan in 2001 provided a big opening to RAW to accomplish its objectives of destabilizing Pakistan. Since 9/11, Indian influence has increased tremendously. RAW has established Consulates and Trade Missions along the Pak-Afghan border to destabilize Balochistan and North West Frontier Province (NWFP).

Several agents of RAW captured in FATA, Waziristan, and other Southern Eastern areas provided that Indians had managed to penetrate deeply in collaboration with Indian allies in the region. As per media reports, recently a spy had been killed by Taliban in Afghanistan. Reportedly that spy disclosed that an Indian intelligence official named C. R. Garg working as Attaché and PS to Indian ambassador had offered as much as US $ 2000-3000 per foreigner killed in Pakistan. The world perception particularly US authorities have strongly being changed now that RAW and some other Indian intelligence agencies have been the only source of terrorism in Pakistan. India intelligence: The other aim of RAW is to keep internal disturbances flaring up and the ISI preoccupied so that Pakistan can lend no worthwhile resistance to Indian designs in the region.

According to the leading media reporters on world’s intelligence have disclosed that RAW and the Israeli spy agency Mossad have created five new agencies to infiltrate Pakistan to target important religious and military personalities, journalists, judges, lawyers and bureaucrats. In addition, bombs would be exploded in trains, railway stations, bridges, bus stations, cinemas, hotels and mosques of rival Islamic sects to incite sectarianism. Black Cats group is one of the main implementing tools of said subversive actions.

Hindu Dharma Raksha Samiti (HDRS), Bajrang Dal (BD) Rashtria Sawayamsevak Sankh (RSS) Shiv Sena (SS) etc enjoy complete backing and support of RAW. These Hindu extremists are asking public and others political forces to support LK Advani as future prime minister since Former Indian minister doesn’t believe in secularism and remained famous for taking stern actions against Muslims and others minorities living there. More over RAW is also supporting anti congress elements and those opposing forces that have pure nationalist approach and believe in extremisms. It is also notable here that RAW is already working 180 degree opposite to ruling party’s policy. LTTE issue, Lt Col Prouhit case , and Prabharkaran Escape ( LTTE Chief remained involved in Rajiv’s murder case ) were clear cut examples of RAW’s strokes against Congress policies.

Manvendra Singh wrote in the report “Even while Indian soldiers were dying in the jungles of north and eastern Sri Lanka, New Delhi was still engaging the LTTE in talks, and Chennai was allowing the militants to rest, recoup and refit in Tamil Nadu. And some intelligence agents were ambushed in the company of LTTE by the IPKF, unaware that New Delhi`s operatives were even there and, above all, moving with the militants. He further accused RAW of orchestrating ambushes against Sri Lankan Army which even the IPKF was unaware of.” “Similarly, the intelligence agencies even organised an ambush in Amparai by the Indian-raised Tamil National Army on a Sri Lankan Army brigade commander without the knowledge of the IPKF leadership. Pak Press Alert

Chan Akya scriptsThe vision of the Arthashastra, is truly breath taking, its practical utility timeless and the clarity of its exposition unique. The techniques of manipulating public opinion and creating disinformation, propounded by Chanakya anticipated modern intelligence systems by several centuries. No wonder then that the nearly 2500 years old lessons in deceit, guile, hypocrisy, machination, and gore taught by that Master strategist, Chanakya alias Kautilya (literally meaning ‘crooked’) was adopted in toto by India and its chief intelligence agency, the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW).

Indira GandhiGetting whatever you want with whatever means necessaryWhile laying the foundation stone of RAW, India’s late Prime Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi approvingly quoted Louis F Hallis, when she said that its objectives should be the ‘Ability to get what one wants by whatever means: eloquence, reasoned arguments, bluff, tirade, threat or coercion, as well as, by arousing pity, annoying others, or making them uneasy’.

RAW destabilising neighboring countriesRAW is basically a Secret Service established to perform clandestine operations based on the Chanakyan principles of deceit and guile. It has successfully destabilised neighbouring countries, disintegrated independent states and backed the most notorious guerrilla organizations to achieve its ends. If it is compared to other intelligence agencies of the region, it emerges as an aggressive, cold-blooded and ruthless institution, engaged in the most macabre deeds.

The organization and structure of RAW will be discussed in the second part of this paper. But to appreciate its working we must, first examine the origin and organization of India’s ancient secret agencies.

Origin and Organization of Secret Agencies in Ancient India

This map of 1853 \The origin and development of Secret Agencies in ancient India is linked to the geopolitical conditions of the times when India was dotted with small states attempting to grab each other’s territory and wealth. The art of espionage was thoroughly mastered, and almost all ancient Indian literary sources exhaustively dealt with this system. Spying came to be regarded as an indispensable feature and integral part of an efficient administration and of a sound foreign policy. It kept the rulers posted with the activities, afflictions, and operations of political adversaries: their disloyal and disgruntled elements, fifth columnists and foreign agents in their midst, also the strength and intentions of all foreign power. Espionage was considered to be as important an institution as diplomacy, and was sought to be governed by certain definite rules and usages. In Chanakya, the secret service department became a permanent feature of the state and was organised in the most ‘uninhibited manner’.

Chan AkyaMahabhartaWhile Chanakya presents a highly developed and complicated system of governance including an all-pervasive espionage system, references to it are found in pre-Mauryan literature, too. The Mahabharata refers to a mythological tradition on the origin of the dandaniti and the art of espionage, which was handed down from the past. It expounds ‘Brahma, the creator, himself composed a work comprising 1,00,000 chapters relating to dharma (religion), artha (economy), kama (sexual desire) and moksa (spiritual salvation) – the four aspects of life.’ Brahma’s compilation, according to the Great Epic, included subjects of behaviour towards counsellors, of spies, the indication of princes, of secret agents possessed of diverse means, of envoys, and agents of other kinds, conciliation, fomenting discord, gifts and chastisement; deliberations including counsels for producing disunion; the three kinds of victory, first, that which served righteously, secondly, which was won by wealth, and, thirdly, the one obtained by deceitful ways; chastisement of two kinds, namely, open and secret; the disorder created in the hostile troops; inspiring the enemy with fear; the means of winning over persons residing in the enemy territory; and finally, the chastisement and destruction of those that are strong.’

No other civilization can claim such an antiquity for the techniques of war, diplomacy, intrigue and espionage and on such compulsive terms.

In short, Varuna and other deities of the Vedic pantheon heavily depended on their secret agents. Manu, Kamandaka, Yajnavalkya and Chanakya, besides the later digest writers, deliberated on the art of espionage, while Chanakya perfected the art and recommended the organisation of secret agencies in the most unabashed manner. Professor Ghoshal suggests that the Mauryas followed the Arthasastra tradition in four respects, i.e. precautions in recruiting spies, countrywide espionage, safeguards against false reports by secret agents and enlistment of the services of loose women.

Organization

The modest origin of secret agents in the form of Varuna’s spasas brought about the imperative need for effective and vigorous espionage in an institutionalized form. The blue-print on espionage prepared by Chanakya has remained a model for successive generations. Various aspects of the organization of a secret agency as discussed in complete detail in the Arthasastra are briefly touched upon here.

  • Arthasastra documents* Category of Agents. The Arthasastra mentions two wings of ‘secret service’, viz. ‘samstha’ and ‘sancara’. The agents belonging to ‘samstha’ were stationed in the Establishment financed by the State, whereas the ‘sancaras’ moved from place to place depending on professional requirements. The spymasters of the two wings headed their respective cadre of agents, and controlled their operations. The members of one group were not aware of the existence of the other. This classification of Chanakya has been followed in India throughout the successive centuries.
  • * Recruitment of Secret Agents. A study of Arthasastra, the Mahabharata, the Ramayana, the Manusmriti, Kamandaka and Sukra reveals that there was no fixed source of recruitment of secret agents. Modern intelligence services generally resort to three main sources of recruitment, the academic world, the armed services and the under-world. This was also the pattern followed in ancient India.
  • * Training. After recruitment, the secret agents were put through a rigorous training in the techniques of adopting disguises, changing appearances, science of signalling, secret writing, detection and identification of criminals, manipulating public opinion and creating dissensions in the enemy ranks.
  • * Control and Supervision. The complicated, comprehensive, all-pervasive and ubiquitous institution of spies in ancient India necessitated very close and personal supervision of the ruler or his most reliable officers. It must have been difficult for the king to personally handle the comprehensive and complicated department of intelligence. According to the Arthasastra, the department of external affairs, which was covering military intelligence was managed by the king with the help of his foreign minister and the Commander-in-Chief. The agents detailed to cover the senior officers of the central government certainly reported to the king directly. In the far-flung areas of extensive kingdoms and in view of poor means of communication, the action specially in times of war had to be taken by men on the spot and not by the king who may be at a place far distant from the field of action. In foreign countries the spies were kept under the control and supervision of ambassadors who scrutinised their reports and directed intelligence operations. According to Chanakya, the institution of spies as an organization did not function under a unified command. The spies and secret agents worked under their respective heads of department, and also directly under the king.

Techniques of Espionage

Before discussing the working of RAW, it would be worthwhile to briefly examine some of the techniques of espionage employed by the ancient secret agencies of India.

  • * Motivation and Recruitment of Sources. Motivation of persons to cater intelligence is directly proportionate to their weakness for sex and money, besides the burning desire of revenge or insatiable hunger for power. The Spymasters of ancient India exploited these weaknesses to their fullest advantage, and even the modern intelligence agencies heavily depend on these considerations. Chanakya advocated that the weak should be subjugated by means of conciliation and gifts, the strong by means of dissension and force.
  • * Selection and Infiltration of Targets. Chanakya, in a very subtle manner and with an intimate knowledge of human psychology, selected his targets in foreign lands depending on their weaknesses and motivation. He advised secret agents to concentrate on targets:-
  • * Among those who are dissatisfied with the rulers or had been humiliated or exiled;
  • * Who have not been compensated for their expenditure;
  • * Those who have been deprived of their rightful inheritance to office;
  • * Whose women have been molested by force;
  • * Who were wrongly imprisoned;
  • * Whose property had been confiscated;
  • * Who are prone to blackmail due to some weakness.

Double-Agent Operation .

CIA and RAW agents

Is Mr. Haqqani a Neocon mole in Islamabad? A Western Oriental Gentleman (WOG) came to the USA in 2002. He noticed that there was a huge opportunity in making a deal with Faust and selling Islamphobia to the naive and scared American public. In the grand tradition of \A ‘Double-Agent’ is a spy who works for the opposition while pretending loyalty to those who employ him. this technique is an indispensable facet of agent-running and was extensively practised in ancient India. Chanakya suggested that secret agents should not refuse pay from the targets for working with them as their employees. This was to allay the misgivings on the part of the targets. ‘Double-Agents’ were used for creating dissensions and confusion among the confederates of the enemy. They floated false documents, got them seized from the possession of the enemy’s army chiefs, and thus weakened the enemy. ‘Double-Agents’ were used to winning over the confidence of their adopted masters by sacrificing a few exposed, treacherous, disaffected or inefficient spies.

  • * Payment of Sources Encouragement of secret agents with money and honour was considered an imperative necessity. The sources were paid both in cash and kind, besides receiving extraordinary courtesies and favours. It was also recommended that secret agents not only be rewarded for the job done by them but, also, in the event of repeated mistakes, silent punishment-death-be awarded to them.
  • * Communication of Intelligence Intelligence not properly and promptly conveyed and which cannot be acted upon loses its value and validity. Besides this, the Arthasastra, Mahabharata, Ramayana, Kamandaka and Kathasaritasagara all recommend the use of coded language and signals.
  • * Interception of Mail Interception of messages, signals and letters by postal censorship; monitoring and tapping telephones; and breaking codes is the standard practice of modern intelligence agencies. In the ancient period, since intelligence was communicated through pre-determined signals and with the assistance of pigeons, secret agents must have made elaborate arrangements to intercept these messages.
  • * Assessment of Information. The Arthasastra cautions against the placing of reliance on agents without proper corroboration. It is repeatedly emphasised that all aspects of a report must be gone through, including the source of information, the mode of its collection and the past performance of a source before it is accepted. Briefing and debriefing of secret agents was an elaborate exercise, and they were trained to be precise, accurate and truthful in reporting.
  • * Working Under ‘Cover’. The institution of espionage in ancient India, like modern times, required secret agents to work under some kind of ‘cover’ to preserve secrecy. Chanakya institutionalized the art of working under the most ingenious ‘covers’. The most common disguises recommended by him were those of ascetic, mendicant, merchant, artisan, wandering minstrel, artiste, cook, barber and shampooer, bath and toilet attendant, deaf, dumb, eunuch and prostitute. Chanakya recommends the use of women as effective tools of espionage particularly those who were engaged in harlotry.
  • * Counter-Intelligence. A counter-intelligence operation is directed at discovering the identities and methods of foreign spies and intelligence officers working for the opposition. One of the most important duties of the Secret Service in ancient India was to counteract the activities of such agents operating within the country. Chanakya recommends that secret agents should discover foreign spies by operating at the places of entertainment, conclaves of people, among beggars, in gardens and public places, and the houses of prominent citizens.

Disinformation and Dissension.

Chandragupta MuyaraManipulation of public opinion is as important an object of the State today as it was in ancient India. It is used to create disharmony and distrust among the enemy’s friends, ill-will among his allies, loss of confidence in their leadership and disruption by psychological means his capacity and will to fight. Chanakya had perfected the technique of disinformation and highly eulogised the use of dissension in enemy’s ranks for winning a battle without any military action. His winning an extensive empire for his student Chandragupta Maurya without fighting any mentionable battle is aweÑ, and one may be excused to add: admirationÑ, inspiring feat, unparalleled in history. The Sanskrit Classical drama Mudrakshasa has tried to depict it dramatically but, at best, has only partially succeeded.

  • * Sabotage. The technique of sabotage, which the political strategists consider as the penultimate means to vanquish an adversary, had been greatly perfected in ancient India. Secret practices for sabotage were advocated by Chanakya to ensure victory. As a preface to sabotage, he suggests the creation of an atmosphere congenial to arousing terror, fear, demoralization, disappointment and loss of confidence among the enemy ranks. Prior to launching a full-scale assault on the enemy fort, Chanakya suggests implementation of secret measures to weaken its defences not only physically but in all respects. These include prevention of sowing the fields, destruction of the standing crops and cutting of the enemy’s supply lines.

He also advises free and uninhibited use of poison in the articles used by the enemy. His detailed and scientifically valid knowledge of the subject has earned for him a place in Arabic medical literature, that knows him as Ibn Shanaq (son of Chanak). Some of the secret stratagems advocated by Chanakya include the use of smoke with properties seriously affecting the vision, and, arson or setting fires within the enemy fort.

  • * The employment of Visakanyas (Poison-damsels). Secret Agencies in ancient India had perfected very ingenious techniques to subserve the interests of their monarchs. Besides using the nascent technological advancement available to them, they exploited human weakness for sex to achieve royal objectives. Visakanya is a unique feature of the Indian genius to poison the monarch. These venomous beauties can be classified, as follows:-
  • * A damsel whose body is saturated with gradual doses of poison, and who is likely to transmit poison from her body to another person coming in contact with her;
  • * A woman who treacherously captivates the heart of a person, and then mixes poison in his food or drink;
  • * A girl who is, one way or the other, so much poisoned or infected with disease that she is likely to convey her poison or disease to the person coming in contact with her. A woman suffering from Venereal disease or, in the latest situation one suffering from Aids is a Visakanya of this kind.

What is not possible by deployment of force is possible by the use of stratagem.The black cobra was defeated by the stratagem of the crow and the golden chain. — Chanakya

Origins

The first part of this article briefly traced out the history of secret services in ancient India. Its chief progenitor was Chanakya, whose classic, the Arthasastra, not only provides a fairly graphic account of the activities of spies in the Mauryan and post-Mauryan polity but lays the foundation for the ‘statecraft’, guile and unscrupulous practices advocated by this master strategist.

He goes on to recommend, ‘In the work of espionage, all methods are admissible Ñ snooping, lying, bribing, poisoning, using women’s wiles and the assassin’s knife. To a weak king menaced by strong neighbours, Chanakya’s advice was to rely chiefly on spies and wage what he described as a ‘battle of intrigues’ (mantra yuddha) and ‘secret wars’ (kuta yuddha). The spies, in order to achieve their objective, were to practice all kinds of fraud, artifice incendiarism and robbery. Their objective was to demoralize the enemy’s troops by circulating false news, and seduce the allegiance of his minister and commanders. The underlying idea seems to have been to keep the strong neighbour preoccupied with domestic troubles thus making it impossible for him to launch a foreign expedition. From the days of Chanakya, the rules of business of espionage have not changed, at least the basic principles remain as before. The development of science and technology has only given fresh impetus and tools to the art of spying.

Evolution of RAW

Origins in the Directorate of Intelligence Bureau, created by the Raj in November 1920 during the Khilafat and Swaraj movements out of the old Criminal Intelligence Department (CID). In 1933, sensing the political turmoil in the world which eventually led to the Second World War, the bureau’s responsibilities were increased to include the collection of intelligence along India’s borders. In 1947, after Independence, Sanjeevi Pillai took over as the first Indian Director. Having been depleted of trained manpower by the exit of the British and Muslims, Pillai tried to run the bureau along MI 5 lines. Although in 1949, Pillai organized a small foreign intelligence set-up, the inefficacy of it was proved by the Indian debacle in the Indo-China War of 1962, and the cry of ‘not enough intelligence available’, was taken up by the Indian Chief of Army Staff, General Chaudhry, after the 1965 Indo-Pak war.

It was towards the end of 1966 and the beginning of 1967 that the concept of a separate foreign intelligence agency began to take concrete shape. In 1968, after Indira Gandhi had taken over, it was decided that a full-fledged second security service was needed. R. N. Kao, then a deputy director of IB, submitted a blueprint for the new agency. Kao was appointed as the chief of India’s first foreign intelligence agency named as ‘the Research and Analysis Wing’ or RAW.

RAW takes shape

Having started humbly as a Wing of the main Intelligence Bureau with 250 personnel and an annual budget of Rs 2 crore (by a rough estimate), in the early seventies, its annual budget had risen to Rs 30 crores while its personnel numbered several thousand. In 1971, Kao had persuaded the government to set up the Aviation Research Centre (ARC). The ARC’s job was aerial reconnaissance. It replaced the Indian Air Force’s old reconnaissance aircraft and by the mid-70s, RAW, through the ARC, had high quality aerial pictures of the installations along the Chinese and Pakistani borders. By 1976, Kao had been promoted to the rank of a fullfledged Secretary responsible for Security and reporting directly to the Prime Minister. His rise had raised RAW to become India’s premier intelligence agency. RAW agents operated in virtually every major embassy and high commission.

RAW’s objectives

The objectives of RAW according to Asoka Raina’s famous book Inside RAW (Vikas Publishing House, New Delhi, 1981) have been:-

  • * To monitor the political and military developments in all the adjoining countries, which have, direct bearing on India’s national security and in the formulation of its foreign policy.
  • * Secondly, RAW watched the development of international communism and the schism between the two communist giants, the Soviet Union and The Republic of China. For as in other countries both the powers had direct access to the Communist Parties in India.
  • * Thirdly, the supply of military hardware to Pakistan mostly from European countries, the USA and China, was of high priority.
  • * And last but not the least, the presence of a large ethnic Indian population in foreign countries, provided a powerful lobby. These countries could back a favourable policy in international councils, motivated by the ethnic Indian group.

The Organization

RAW has been organized on the lines of the CIA. The following chart (source: Inside RAW by Asoka Raina) signifies the organization of RAW and is self-explanatory.

Training of RAW Agents

Recruitment: Initially, induction in RAW relied primarily on trained intelligence officers who were recruited directly. These belonged to the external wing of IB. However, quite a few were taken from police and other services to fill the cadres of RAW owing to its sudden expansion. Later RAW began recruiting promising fresh graduates from the Universities directly. The criteria for selection are fairly stringent.

Basic Training: Basic training commences with ‘pep talks’ to boost the morale of the new recruit. This is a ten days’ phase in which the fresh inductee is familiarized with the world of intelligence and espionage and alienated from the spies of fiction. Common usages, technical jargon and classification of information are taught. Case studies of other agencies like CIA, KGB, Chinese Secret Agency and ISI are presented for study. He is also taught that an intelligence organisation does not basically identify a friend from a foe, it is the country’s foreign policy that do.

Phase – II: The fresh recruit’s training continues and he is now posted in some remote outpost, attached to a Field Intelligence Bureau (FIB). His training here lasts for a period of six months to a year. He is given a first hand feeling of what it was to be out in the cold, in the danger area conducting clandestine operation. During night exercises, under conditions of absolute realism, he is taught infiltration and exfiltration. He is instructed to avoid capture and if caught, how to face intensive interrogation; the art of reconnoiter, making contacts, and, the numerous skills of operating an intelligence mission. At the end of the field training, the new recruit is brought back to the School for final polishing. Before his deployment in the field, he is given exhaustive training in the art of self-defence, an introduction to martial arts and the use of technical espionage devices. He is also drilled in various administrative disciplines so that he could take his place in the foreign missions without arousing suspicion. He is now ready to operate under the cover of an Embassy to gather information, set up his own network of informers, moles or operatives as the task may require.

Functions of RAW

The functions of RAW vary according to the target. Some functions for obtaining strategic intelligence are outlined below:-

Collection of Information: Emphasis is laid on obtaining information essential to Indian interests. Both overt and covert means are adopted.

Collection of Information : The vast myriad of data is sifted through, classified and filed. The modern computer network in the 13-storey bombproof building situated at Lodhi Road, New Delhi, is a great help.

Aggressive Intelligence: The primary mission of RAW includes aggressive intelligence which comprise espionage, psychological warfare, subversion, sabotage, terrorism and creating dissension, insurgency and, ultimately, insurrection to destabilize the target country.

Modus Operandi

Indian Consulates-dens of inequity in Afghanistan supporting terror in PakistanForeign Missions: Foreign Missions provide an ideal cover and RAW centres in a target country are generally located inside the Embassy premises.

TataMultinationals: RAW operatives find good covers in Multinational organizations. NGOs and Cultural programmes are also popular screens to shield RAW activities.

Media: International media centres can easily absorb RAW operatives and provide freedom of movement.

Central Intelligence Agency shield Spy agencyJINSACollaboration with other agencies: RAW maintains active collaboration with other secret services to meet its ends in a particular target country. Its contacts with KGB of the former Soviet Union, KHAD, the erstwhile Afghan agency, Mossad, CIA and MI6 have been well-known. A common interest being Pakistan’s Nuclear Programme.

Tajikistan map Indian base-Indian Consulates-dens of InequityThird Country Technique: RAW has been very active in obtaining information and operating through third countries like the Middle East, Afghanistan, UK, Hong Kong, Mayanmar and Singapore.

Hamid Karzai the May of Kabul like the last emperor of ChinaSpotting and Recruitment: RAW operatives are on the lookout for local recruits to serve their ends. Acting on the Chanakyan principles, they tend to exploit human weaknesses for wine, women and wealth, and, at times resort to blackmail. Separatist tendencies and ethnic or sectarian sensitivities are also well-known grounds for manipulation. Armed Forces personnel remain a primary target. Those journalists, intellectuals and politicians harbouring and preaching goodwill and better Indo-Pak relations also make suitable targets for inadvertent and unconscious recruitment by RAW agents.

Major successes of RAW

 Indian Hnduvata- Hindu extremism in India and beyondCreation of Bangladesh: The Bangladesh operation, beginning with sowing seeds of dissension, leading to the Agartala Conspiracy, creation of Mukti Bahini and under its cover sneaking into East Pakistan for guerrilla operations to blow up bridges and other installations damaged the morale of Pakistani troops and India won the war even before the battle began, thanks to RAW as its agents had infiltrated every nook and corner of erstwhile East Pakistan. The paragraph entitled: ‘RAW takes shape’, in the initial part of this article, amply demonstrates the causal chain of events.

Plan to assassinate General Zia-ur-Rahman: According to the September 18-24, 1988 issue of the weekly Magazine Sunday (Calcutta), RAW was on the verge of assassinating Bangladesh’s President General Zia-ur-Rahman (with Mrs Gandhi’s approval) when the Congress government fell. RAW briefed the new Prime Minister Morarji Desai about it who was appalled at the idea and stopped the murder. General Zia continued to rule Bangladesh for many more years. He was assassinated after Indira Gandhi returned to power but RAW pleads innocence.

Nuke bombPoornima: Project Poornima was the name given India’s Nuclear Programme. The task to keep it ‘under tight wraps of security’ was given to RAW. This was the first time that RAW was involved in a project inside India. The rest is history as India managed to surprise the world on 18 May, 1974 by detonating a 15-Kiloton plutonium device at Pokharan.

Kahuta nuclear plant of PakistanKahuta’s Blueprint: According to the September 18-24, 1988 issue of the weekly Indian Magazine Sunday, RAW agents claim that in early 1978, they were on the verge of obtaining the plans and blueprint for Kahuta nuclear plant that was built to counter the Pokharan atomic blast, but the then Indian Prime Minister Morarji Desai not only refused to sanction the $ 10,000 demanded by the RAW agent, but informed Pakistan of the offer. According to the report, Pakistanis caught and eliminated the RAW mole.

It must be noted that the author of ‘Ham Jang Nahin Hone Denge’ held the external affairs portfolio at that time.

Map of Sikkim is vulnerable to an expanding China mapSikkim: Encircled by Tibet, Nepal, Bhutan and West Bengal in the Eastern Himalayas, Sikkim presented a lucrative target to the Indians. It was ruled by a Maharaja. The Indian Government had recognized the title of Chogyal (Dharma Raja) for the Mahraja of Sikkim. After their kill in East Pakistan, in 1972, RAW was given the green signal to go ahead with the operation of installing a pro-Indian democratic government there. In less than three years, with the manipulation of RAW, Sikkim became the 22nd State of the Indian Union on April 26, 1975.

Maldive Islands South of Sri LankaMaldives: To bring the smaller Independent States/countries in the Indian sphere of influence with the use of RAW, the case of Maldives makes an important example. In November 1988, the Eilam Peoples’ Liberation Front comprising about 200 Tamil secessionists on the pay roll of RAW were tasked to stage the drama of an uprising on that peaceful island. At the request of the President of Maldives, Mr Mamoon Abdul Qayyum, Indian Armed Forces ‘quelled’ the insurgency engineered by themselves and thus tried to sneak into the administrative mechanism of that peace-loving country.

Ladakh has a Muslim majority map. Kashmir valley mapOperation Chanakya: This was the codename given to the RAW operation in Occupied Kashmir to create rifts among the various Kashmiri Mujahideen groups, suppress the uprising and bring the Kashmiris under total Indian subjugation. According to Tariq Ismail Sagar’s book RAW, (Milli Book Depot, Lahore, 1997) in 1991, RAW operatives entered the Srinagar Valley in the guise of freedom fighters. They resorted to loot, rape and arson of Kashmiri Pundit families to give the popular non-communal uprising a bad name. Operation Chanakya gained momentum when Mossad provided its experienced Katsas to train RAW operatives. They did gain initial successes but when later actions of Operations Chanakya failed, RAW commenced an intensive propaganda to blame ISI.

Nawaz Sharif sketch of the PMLNMonitoring Pakistani Telecommunication: Raw operatives boast that at one time its monitoring complex had managed to break through Pakistani Telecommunications and were listening in to all telephonic conversations held by important Pakistani leaders.

RAW’s Failures

Although RAW has had many successes, it has also committed a number of blunders. Some of these are discussed below:

Indira GandhiPromulgation of Emergency: Whereas the IB Director, A. Jayaram had advised Mrs Indira Gandhi against promulgating the Emergency, Kao, Mrs Gandhi’s handpicked man and RAW’s head, supported it. This proved to be a fatal mistake. He continued to feed the PM reports of its popularity and that no excesses were committed. How disastrous it proved for Kao’s benefactor is a matter of history.

Khalsa Fauj supports Khalistan Zindabad in Barnal PunjabOperation Blue Star: This was the codename given to the storming of the holiest Sikh shrine, the Golden Temple of Amritsar in 1984. Although it was a domestic matter and IB’s concern, yet RAW was pulled in under the pretext of a foreign element’s (allegedly Pakistani) involvement. RAW failed miserably as it could not assess the strength of Bhindranwale’s forces. What was to be a 5 hours’ operation stretched to 5 days and tanks had to be brought in and Indian Army suffered heavy casualties. Ultimately Indira Gandhi had to pay with her own life as she was gunned down by her Sikh bodyguard in retaliation to Operation Blue Star. Kao, the Prime Minister’s Security Adviser resigned within 24 hours of her assassination.

Kee us ne mere qatl ke ba’d Jafaa se tauba,
Haae! Us zood pashemaan kaa pashemaan honaa.

Ah! The remorse of the one
Who after finishing me,
Took the vow never to be cruel again.
So soon did he repent!
Bravo!

— Ghalib

Coup de etat against Mujib Ur Rehman 4th August 1975Shaikh Mujib\'s body lay in the streets of daysMujib-ur-Rahman’s Assassination: RAW operatives claim that they had advance information about Shaikh Mujib-ur-Rahman’s assassination but they failed to prevent it. It is interesting to note that despite its role in the creation of Bangladesh, RAW failed to annex it.

It was a classic case of the cropping up of a double dilemma: Yak na shud do shud.

Mauritius map location: Mrs Gandhi was so keen to see Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam continue as the Prime Minister of Mauritius that RAW was tasked to oversee his reelection campaign. Despite heavy investments, RAW failed by a wide margin.

Sri LankaSri Lanka: Sri Lanka had been marked for special attention after it had permitted Pakistani aircraft to land for refuelling there after India had stopped the over flight rights of Pakistani flights to and back from East Pakistan. Sri Lankan President Junius Jaywardhene’s aim of turning his country into an Asian Tiger did not suit India at all. Stung by its failures in the Indian Punjab, RAW attempted to make up in Sri Lanka. RAW started training militants to destabilize the Pearl Island but in the bargain, such a monster was unleashed that even the landing of Indian troops as a peacekeeping force in Sri Lanka failed badly. Eventually, Rajiv Gandhi became a victim of the muddling in Sri Lanka.

RAW seems to be a congenital enemy of the Gandhi family.

Soft Target: Zuhair Kashmiri and Brian Mac Andrew’s well-known book Soft Target (James Lorimer and Comp., Publishers, Toronto, 1994) provides details of RAW’s botched operations in Canada to malign the Sikhs there for their role in the Khalsa movement and make them suspect in the eyes of the Canadian authorities. On 23 June, 1985 Air India’s Flight 182 was blown up near Ireland and 329 innocent lives were lost. On the same day another explosion took place at Tokyo’s Narita airport’s transit baggage building where baggage was being transferred from Cathay Pacific Flight No CP 003 to Air India’s Flight 301 which was scheduled for Bangkok. Both aircraft were loaded with explosives from Canadian airports. Flight 301 got saved because of a delay in its departure. Initially RAW was successful in pointing the finger at Canadian Sikhs but the Canadian authorities soon concluded that it was a RAW ploy.

RAW’s Primary Target: Pakistan

The Pakistani flag --The Crescent and Star. Khanjar Hilal ka hai Qaumi nishaan humaaraPakistan remains RAW’s primary concern. It runs thousands of agents and spends millions of rupees in its operations against Pakistan. It has made a three-pronged attack against Pakistan in an attempt to destabilise it:-

* Propaganda

* Espionage, and

* Subversion

RAW is totally committed on all these three fronts and is engaged in launching covert operations in consonance with India’s hostile foreign policy. The Jain Commission Report, released by India in 1997, acknowledges that RAW did sponsor the terrorist activities of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eilam (LTTE) in Sri Lanka and violent intervention in Bangladesh. All aspects of Pakistani activities, economic, military, industrial and cultural receive a close scrutiny of RAW. It considers Sindh as the soft under-belly of Pakistan and has therefore made it the prime target for sabotage and subversion.

Ashok A Biswas, a Delhi-based research scholar, in his recently compiled study RAW – An Unobstructive Instrument of India’s Foreign Policy, (as quoted by Pakistan Observer in ‘A RAW deal for South Asia, 03 May, 1998) states that ‘the aim of RAW is to keep internal disturbances flaring up and the ISI preoccupied so that Pakistan can lend no worthwhile resistance to Indian designs in the region.‘ He concludes, ‘RAW over the years has admirably fulfilled its task of destabilizing target states through unbridled export for terrorism.

The ‘Indian Doctrine’ spelt out a difficult and onerous role of RAW. It goes to its credit that it has accomplished its assigned objectives. The Indian government spelling out the task for RAW in this regard has stated, ‘Pakistan should be so destabilized internally that it could not support the ‘Kashmir cause even morally, diplomatically or politically’. Keeping the size of Pakistan in view, the task seems a difficult one for RAW. But it appears, RAW has taken it as a challenge and is working assiduously and speedily to accomplish this task’.

No wonder, with the wily Chanakya as its mentor and the machinations preached in his Arthasastra as their bible, RAW is well equipped to continue waging its war of propaganda, sabotage and subversion. It is for its prime target ‘Pakistan’ to be wary of its macabre game plan of continuing war by ‘other means’ and continue exposing RAW’s heinous designs against us, which are a blatant, utter and naked violation of all human values. And not the least the people and the leadership of India; for as the great poet Ghalib said:

Hue tum dost jiske,
Us ka dushman asman kiyun ho

With a friend like you,
Who needs a foe!
http://www.defencejournal.com/feb-mar99/raw-at-war.htm

Columnist Gp Capt (Retd) S M Hali of Pakistan Air Force examines the historical capacity of Research & Analysis Wing (RAW) of India to conduct clandestine operations

Contributed by Isha Khan, Rupee News Dhaka based regular columnist who can be reached at bdmailer@gmail.com

Pakistan is the next targeted Muslim Domino: Does the Obsequious Zardari and the on-again, off-again, on-again, off-again Tubelight called Nawaz Sharif realize the dangers. Democaracy as a tool against Muslims. Has the invasion already begun. If one counts the drone attacks, the answer is yes. The US invasion of Pakistan starts! Another Green Domino is being destabilized and now needs to be pacified with American boots. The Pakistani reaction will be vocal and bloody!.

Posted in Current Affairs, India CA, Pak CAComments (4)

Caricature of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, desi...

The 109th Congress of the USA condemned Mohandas Gandhi

Caricature of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, desi...

Image via Wikipedia

The 109th Congress of the USA condemned Mohandas Gandhi

You can fool some of the poeple all the time, all the people some of the time, but not all the people all the time.

Slowly but steadily the truth about Mr. Mohandas Gandhi’s racism is becoming self evident to most Americans. What was only whispered a few decades ago, what was only mentioned in hushed coversations a few years ago, is now part of the Congressional Record of the United States of America. The cacaphony of the criticism against Mr. Gandhi is now being shouted from the top of the mountains and is consecrated in the library of congress books. The farce cannot be hidden anymore.

 

Noticias de Rupia | Nouvelles de Roupie | Rupiennachrichten  Roepienieuws | Rupi Nyheter Notizie di Rupia | PAKISTAN LEDGER  DefensebriefsIntellibriefs Translate to: RSS feed: | RUPEE NEWS | September 3rd, 2008  |

United States of America Congressional Record on Mohandas Gandhi

RACISM OF INDIAN FOUNDER EXPOSED
(Extensions of Remarks – December 13, 2005)

HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS
OF NEW YORK
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2005

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, the unveiling of a statue of Mohandas K. Gandhi in Johannesburg, South Africa, set off a discussion about the anti-black racism of the founder of India.

When the eight-foot high Gandhi statue was unveiled, portraying him as a young human-rights lawyer, many leaders attacked Gandhi’s anti-black statements. “Gandhi had no love for Africans,” said one letter in The Citizen, a South African newspaper. “To him, Africans were no better than the `Untouchables’ of India.”

As you may know, Mr. Speaker, the dark-skinned aborigines of the subcontinent, known as Dalits or “Untouchables,” occupy the lowest rung on the ladder of India’s rigid and racist caste system. The caste system exists to protect the privileged position of the Brahmins, the top caste. Although it was officially banned by India’s constitution in 1950, it is still strictly practiced in Hindu India.

Others have pointed out that Gandhi ignored the suffering of black people during the colonial occupation of South Africa. When he was arrested and forced to share a cell with black prisoners, he wrote that they were “only one degree removed from the animal.” In other words, Mr. Speaker, he described blacks as less than human. We condemn anyone who says this in our country, such as the Ku Klux Klan and others, as we should. Why is Gandhi venerated for such statements?

In addition, G.B. Singh, a Gandhi biographer, has looked through many pictures of him and never seen one single black person. Gandhi also attacked white Europeans.

Gandhi is honored as the founder of India. These statements and attitudes reveal the racist underpinning behind the secular, democratic facade of India. It explains a worldview that permits a Dalit constable to be stoned to death for entering the temple on a rainy day, that allows the murders of over 300,000 Christians in Nagaland, over 250,000 Sikhs in Punjab, Khalistan, over 90,000 Muslims in Kashmir, tens of thousands of Christians and Muslims elsewhere in the country, including Graham Staines and his two young sons, and tens of thousands of Assamese, Bodos, Dalits, Manipuris, Tamils, and other minorities. It explains why the pro-Fascist, Hindu militant RSS is a powerful organization in India, in control of one of its two major political parties.

India must abandon its racist attitudes and its exploitation of minorities. It must allow the enjoyment of full human rights by everyone. Until it does so, we should stop our aid and trade with India. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the essence of democracy is the right to self-determination. India must allow self-determination for Kashmir, as it promised the United Nations in 1948, in Punjab, Khalistan, in Nagaland, and wherever the people seek to free themselves from the boot of Indian oppression. We should put this Congress on record in support of self-determination for the people of the subcontinent in the form of a free and fair plebiscite on the question of independence. Khalistan declared its independence on October 7, 1987. The people have never been allowed to have a simple, democratic vote on the matter. Instead, India continues to oppress the people there with over half a million troops.

Mr. Speaker, reporter Rory Carroll of The Guardian wrote an excellent article on the controversy about the Gandhi statue. I would like to place it in the Record at this time.

 


[The Guardian, Friday Oct. 17, 2003]

 

GANDHI BRANDED RACIST
AS JOHANNESBURG HONOURS FREEDOM FIGHTER

(By Rory Carroll)

It was supposed to honour his resistance to racism in South Africa, but a new statue of Mahatma Gandhi in Johannesburg has triggered a row over his alleged contempt for black people. The 2.5 metre high (8ft) bronze statue depicting Gandhi as a dashing young human rights lawyer has been welcomed by Nelson Mandela, among others, for recognising the Indian who launched the fight against white minority rule at the turn of the last century.

But critics have attacked the gesture for overlooking racist statements attributed to Gandhi, which suggest he viewed black people as lazy savages who were barely human.

Newspapers continue to publish letters from indignant readers: “Gandhi had no love for Africans. To [him], Africans were no better than the `Untouchables’ of India,” said a correspondent to The Citizen.

Others are harsher, claiming the civil rights icon “hated” black people and ignored their suffering at the hands of colonial masters while championing the cause of Indians.

Unveiled this month, the statue stands in Gandhi Square in central Johannesburg, not far from the office from which he worked during some of his 21 years in South Africa.

The British-trained barrister was supposed to have been on a brief visit in 1893 to represent an Indian company in a legal action, but he stayed to fight racist laws after a conductor kicked him off a train for sitting in a first-class compartment reserved for whites.

Outraged, he started defending Indians charged with failing to register for passes and other political offences, founded a newspaper, and formed South Africa’s first organised political resistance movement. His tactics of mobilising people for passive resistance and mass protest inspired black people to organise and some historians credit Gandhi as the progenitor of the African National Congress, which formed in 1912, two years before he returned to India to fight British colonial rule.

However, the new statue has prompted bitter recollections about some of Gandhi’s writings.

Forced to share a cell with black people, he wrote: “Many of the native prisoners are only one degree removed from the animal and often created rows and fought among themselves.”

He was quoted at a meeting in Bombay in 1896 saying that Europeans sought to degrade Indians to the level of the “raw kaffir, whose occupation is hunting and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with, and then pass his life in indolence and nakedness”.

The Johannesburg daily This Day said GB Singh, the author of a critical book about Gandhi, had sifted through photos of Gandhi in South Africa and found not one black person in his vicinity.

The Indian embassy in Pretoria declined to comment, as it prepared for President Thabo Mbeki’s visit to India.

Khulekani Ntshangase, a spokesman for the ANC Youth League, defended Gandhi, saying the critics missed the bigger picture of his immense contribution to the liberation struggle.

Gandhi’s offending comments were made early in his life when he was influenced by Indians working on the sugar plantations and did not get on with the black people of modern-day KwaZulu-Natal province, said Mr. Ntshangase.

“Later he got more enlightened.”

Her are some articles on Mr. Mohandas K. Gandhi:

GANDHI’s RACISM AGAINST BLACKS

Gandhi condones Zulu massacres and defends the British. Aug 4 1906
The sex life of Gandhi. His failure as a politician
The myth of Mohandas K. Gandhi debunked. He gets an “F” on South Africa, Salt Match, Non-Violence, and nationalism
Which war did Mohandas Gandhi support? All of them. There wasn’t a war that the “prophet” of Non-Violence did not support. He was Sergeant Major in the British Army & won a medal for his combat service
Gandhi’s racism. The truth behind the mask. Behold Sergeant Major Gandhi who supported the British in the Boer war, against the Zulu rebellion. Behold the prophet of peace who worked to stratify the South African society.
Gandhi extended the life of British Empire by helping UK wars

Gandhi’s letter to his friend Hitler.
Gandhi sex life deviant sexual perversion, and political failures Is India a failed state? Peek behind the Bollywood gloss!
Chilled Urine drinking hot in India. Gandhi to PM Desai to common man

Posted in Current Affairs, India CA, Mohandas Karamchand GandhiComments (0)

Flag of the Pakistan Army

There were no mass rapes in 1971: Sarmila Bose

Flag of the Pakistan Army

Image via Wikipedia

New impartial evidence debunks 1971 rape allegations against Pakistan Army

A study of the 1971 conflict by an Indian academic, Prof Sarmila Bose, says the Pakistan army personnel did not rape Bengali women as has been widely alleged by Indian and Bangladeshi writers. While Prof Bose’s study focuses on certain specific cases, the finding is very interesting, based as it is on extensive interviews with eyewitnesses. The study also determines the pattern of conflict as three-layered: West Pakistan versus East Pakistan, East Pakistanis (pro-Independence) versus East Pakistanis (pro-Union) and the fateful war between India and Pakistan.

As Prof Bose has noted, no prior study of the conflict has been done. What we have are narratives that strengthen one point of view by rubbishing contending viewpoints. The Bangladeshi meta-narrative, for instance, focuses on the rape issue and uses that not only to demonise the Pakistan army but also exploit it as a symbol of why it was important to break away from (West) Pakistan. Indeed, the sheer number of Bangladeshi women raped is placed in the millions, a fact to which the Hamoodur Rehman Commission Report also referred and declared as absurd. Even so, over the years the charge of rape has stuck to the Pakistan army and weighed it down in moral terms. Prof Bose, a Bengali herself and belonging to the family of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, has done a remarkable job of investigating the charge and paving the way for independent scholars to probe the issue further.

Prof Bose, who unveiled her study at a US State Department conference convened to mark the release of declassified US government documents from that period, also spoke about the violence generated by all sides. “The civil war of 1971 was fought between those who believed they were fighting for a united Pakistan and those who believed their chance for justice and progress lay in an independent Bangladesh. Both were legitimate political positions. All parties in this conflict embraced violence as a means to the end, all committed acts of brutality outside accepted norms of warfare, and all had their share of humanity. These attributes make the 1971 conflict particularly suitable for efforts towards reconciliation, rather than recrimination,” says Prof Bose.

It goes to Prof Bose’s credit that while studying the conflict she retained her professionalism and integrity, two essential traits normally absent in studies done of that period by all sides. Under the circumstances, if she wants to explore the issue further the Pakistan army should not hesitate to give her access to raw material in its archives so that she can expand her work. Indeed, here’s the Pakistan army’s chance to wash this stigma off it once and for all. We are reasonably sure that elements within Bangladesh — and even India — will criticise Bose’s study because it goes against the grain of Bangladeshi nationalism. But this will not take away from its impartialness and significance.

Related Links

  • Sarmila Bose’s original paper (published in EPW..one of the previous version which caused the major firestorm in Bangladesh was taken down after the writer sent legal threat to the hosting company of this website without corresponding with us.)

News articles from Pakistan supporting her views:

Posted in Current AffairsComments (0)

Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose: The Forgotten Hero

The reality of 1971

Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose: The Forgotten Hero
Sharmila Bose is niece of Netaji Bose the great Bharati nationalist Wikipedia

The courageous Pakistan army stand on the eastern front —Sarmila Bose

There is much for Pakistan to come to terms with what happened in 1971. But the answers don’t lie in unthinking vilification of the fighting men who performed so well in the war against such heavy odds in defence of the national policy. Rather, in failing to honour them, the nation dishonours itself.

My introduction to international politics was 1971, as a schoolgirl in Calcutta. Many images from that year are still etched in my mind, but the culminating one was the photo on Ramna racecourse of two men sitting at a table — the smart, turbaned Sikh, ‘our’ war-hero, Jagjit Singh Aurora, and the large man in a beret, A A K Niazi, commander of the other side, signing the instrument of surrender.

Nearly a generation later, a chance interview for the BBC with Lt Gen. Aurora took me back to 1971. The interview was not about 1971, but about injustices suffered by Sikhs at the hands of the state General Aurora had served. I thought he was a bigger hero for what he had to say then. That view was reinforced as I read — with incredulity — the disparaging remarks by other Indian officers about him, and each other, in their books. If this is what happened to the winning commander, I wondered what had happened to the other man in the photo. The result was a revelation.

It turns out that General Niazi has been my ‘enemy’ since the Second World War. As Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose and his Indian National Army fought on the Burma front in 1943-45 in their quest for India’s freedom, Niazi was fighting on the other side, for the British Indian Army, under the overall command of General (later Field Marshal) William Joseph Slim. Slim and his 14th Army halted the advance of the INA and the Japanese at the Imphal campaign and turned the course of the war.

In the process of inflicting military defeat upon my ancestor, Niazi’s performance was so exceptional that the British awarded him an on-the-spot Military Cross for action on the Assam-Burma front in June 1944. On another occasion they wanted to award a DSO, but he was too junior, so a Mention in Despatches was recorded. In the original record of his MC signed by his commanding officers all the way up to Slim, which I obtained from the British Ministry of Defence, the British commanders describe Niazi’s gallantry in detail: “He organized the attack with such skill that his leading platoon succeeded in achieving complete surprise over the enemy.” They speak of how he personally led his men, the ‘great skill and coolness’ under fire with which he changed tactics with changing circumstances, created diversionary attacks, extricated his wounded, defeated the enemy and withdrew his men by section, remaining personally at the rear in every case.

The British honoured Niazi for “personal leadership, bravery and complete disregard for his own personal safety.” On 15 December 1944 the Viceroy Lord Wavell flew to Imphal and in the presence of Lord Mountbatten knighted Slim and his corps commanders Stopford, Scoones and Christison. Only two ‘Indian’ officers were chosen to be decorated by the Viceroy at that ceremony — ‘Tiger’ Niazi was one of them.

In 1971 Niazi was a highly decorated Pakistani general, twice receiving the Hilal-e-Jurat. He was sent to East Pakistan in April 1971 — part of a sorry tradition in South Asia of political rulers attempting to find military solutions to political problems. By then Tikka Khan had already launched the crackdown of 25 March for which he has been known to Bengalis as the ‘butcher of Bengal’ ever since. The population of East Bengal was completely hostile and Pakistan condemned around the world.

Authoritative scholarly analyses of 1971 are rare. The best work is Richard Sisson and Leo Rose’s War and Secession. Robert Jackson, fellow of All Soul’s College, Oxford, wrote an account shortly after the events. Most of the principal participants did not write about it, a notable exception being Gen. Niazi’s recent memoirs (1998). Some Indian officers have written books of uneven quality — they make for an embarrassing read for what the Indians have to say about one another.

However, a consistent picture emerges from the more objective accounts of the war. Sisson and Rose describe how India started assisting Bengali rebels since April, but “the Mukti Bahini had not been able to prevent the Pakistani army from regaining control over all the major urban centers on the East Pakistani-Indian border and even establishing a tenuous authority in most of the rural areas.” From July to October there was direct involvement of Indian military personnel. “…mid-October to 20 November… Indian artillery was used much more extensively in support …and Indian military forces, including tanks and air power on a few occasions, were also used…Indian units were withdrawn to Indian territory once their objectives had been brought under the control of the Mukti Bahini — though at times this was only for short periods, as, to the irritation of the Indians, the Mukti Bahini forces rarely held their ground when the Pakistani army launched a counterattack.”

Clearly, the Pakistani army regained East Pakistan for their masters in Islamabad by April-May, creating an opportunity for a political settlement, and held off both Bengali guerrillas and their Indian supporters till November, buying more time — time and opportunity that Pakistan’s rulers and politicians failed to utilise.

Contrary to Indian reports, full-scale war between India and Pakistan started in East Bengal on 21 November, making it a four-week war rather than a ‘lightning campaign’. Sisson and Rose state bluntly: “After the night of 21 November…Indian forces did not withdraw. From 21 to 25 November several Indian army divisions…launched simultaneous military actions on all of the key border regions of East Pakistan, and from all directions, with both armored and air support.” Indian officers like Sukhwant Singh and Lachhman Singh write quite openly in their books about India invading East Pakistani territory in November, which they knew was ‘an act of war’.

None of the outside scholars expected the Eastern garrison to withstand a full Indian invasion. On the contrary, Pakistan’s longstanding strategy was “the defense of the east is in the west”. Jackson writes, “Pakistani forces had largely withdrawn from scattered border-protection duties into cleverly fortified defensive positions at the major centres inside the frontiers, where they held all the major ‘place names’ against Mukti Bahini attacks, and blocked the routes of entry from India…”

Sisson and Rose point out the incongruity of Islamabad tolerating India’s invasion of East Pakistani territory in November. On 30 November Niazi received a message from General Hamid stating, “The whole nation is proud of you and you have their full support.” The same day Islamabad decided to launch an attack in the West on 2 December, later postponed to 3 December, after a two-week wait, but did not inform the Eastern command about it. According to Jackson, the Western offensive was frustrated by 10 December.

Though futile, the Western offensive allowed India to openly invade the East, with overwhelming advantages. “ …despite all these advantages, the war did not go as smoothly and easily for the Indian army…”, but Sisson and Rose come to the balanced judgment that “The Pakistanis fought hard and well; the Indian army won an impressive victory.” Even Indian officers concede the personal bravery of Niazi and the spirited fight put up by the Pakistanis in the East. That the troops fought so well against such overwhelming odds is a credit both to them, and to their commanders, for an army does not fight well in the absence of good leadership.

However, as Jackson put it, “…India’s success was inevitable from the moment the general war broke out — unless diplomatic intervention could frustrate it.” As is well known, Pakistan failed to secure military or diplomatic intervention. Sisson and Rose also say, “The outcome of the conflict on the eastern front after 6 December was not in doubt, as the Indian military had all the advantages.” On 14 December Niazi received the following message from Yahya Khan: “You have fought a heroic battle against overwhelming odds. The nation is proud of you …You have now reached a stage where further resistance is no longer humanly possible nor will it serve any useful purpose… You should now take all necessary measures to stop the fighting and preserve the lives of armed forces personnel, all those from West Pakistan and all loyal elements…” Sisson and Rose naturally describe this message as “implying that the armed forces in East Pakistan should surrender”.

No matter how traumatic the outcome of 1971 for Pakistan, the Eastern command did not create the conflict, nor were they responsible for the failure of the political and diplomatic process. Sent to do the dirty work of the political manoeuvrers, the fighting men seem to have performed remarkably well against overwhelming odds. It is shocking therefore to discover that they were not received with honour by their nation on their return. Their commander, Niazi, appears to have been singled out, along with one aide, to be punished arbitrarily with dismissal and denial of pension, without being given the basic right to defend himself through a court-martial, which he asked for.

The commission set up allegedly to examine what had happened in 1971 was too flawed in its terms of reference and report to have any international credibility. However, even its recommendations of holding public trials and court-martials were ignored. There is much for Pakistan to come to terms with what happened in 1971. But the answers don’t lie in unthinking vilification of the fighting men who performed so well in the war against such heavy odds in defence of the national policy. Rather, in failing to honour them, the nation dishonours itself.

Sarmila Bose is Assistant Editor, Ananda Bazar Patrika, India & Visiting Scholar, Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University

http://www.sulekha.com/redirectnh.asp?cid=321517

Posted in UncategorizedComments (0)

Pakistan Army troops wearing the standard sand...

'Dead Reckoning' redefines history of 1971

Pakistan Army troops wearing the standard sand...
Image via Wikipedia

Dead Reckoning: This ground-breaking book chronicles the 1971 war in South Asia by reconstituting the memories of those on opposing sides of the conflict. 1971 was marked by a bitter civil war within Pakistan and war between India and Pakistan, backed respectively by the Soviet Union and the United States. It was fought over the territory of East Pakistan, which seceded to become Bangladesh. Through a detailed investigation of events on the ground, Sarmila Bose contextualises and humanises the war while analysing what the events reveal about the nature of the conflict itself. The story of 1971 has so far been dominated by the narrative of the victorious side. All parties to the war are still largely imprisoned by wartime partisan mythologies. Bose reconstructs events via interviews conducted in Bangladesh and Pakistan, published and unpublished reminiscences in Bengali and English of participants on all sides, official documents, foreign media reports and other sources. Her book challenges assumptions about the nature of the conflict, and exposes the ways in which the 1971 war is still playing out in the region.

Product code: 455601, ISBN13: 9781849040495, 288 pages, paperback
Published by C Hurst & Co Publishers Ltd in 2011

SARMILA BOSE is Senior Research Fellow in the Politics of South Asia at the University of Oxford. She was a political journalist in India and combines academic and media work. She was educated at Bryn Mawr College and Harvard University.

Ms. Sharmila Bose in her paper entitled “Losing the Victims: Problems of Using Women as Weapons in Recounting the Bangladesh War”  paints a picture of the Pakistani military as a disciplined force that spared women and children. She writes:

During my field research on several incidents in East Pakistan during 1971, Bangladeshi participants and eyewitnesses described battles, raids, massacres and executions, but told me that women were not harmed by the army in these events except by chance such as in crossfire. The pattern that emerged from these incidents was that the Pakistan army targeted adult males while sparing women and children.

She also quotes the passage from the Hamoodur Rahman Commission Report that I cited above to support her assertion that so many rapes could not have occurred. 20,000-34,000 could not have raped 200,000 to 400,000 women in the space of nine months.

She states in the introduction:

That rape occurred in East Pakistan in 1971 has never been in any doubt. The question is what was the true extent of rape, who were the victims and who the perpetrators and was there any systematic policy of rape by any party, as opposed to opportunistic sexual crimes in times of war.

To try to bolster her argument that the Pakistani forces in Bangladesh could not have raped so many women, she claims:

The number of West Pakistani armed forces personnel in East Pakistan was about 20,000 at the beginning of the conflict, rising to 34,000 by December. Another 11,000 men — civil police and non-combat personnel — also held arms.

For an army of 34,000 to rape on this scale in eight or nine months (while fighting insurgency, guerrilla war and an invasion by India), each would-be perpetrator would have had to commit rape at an incredible rate.

There are numerous reports out there now which negates the well established beliefs. The declassified US reports, Indian military officers account, Pakistan military officers account, General Niazi’s memoirs, Sharmila Bose, Hamoodurahman commission report.

Pakistan Military officers fought hard. Many foreign correspondents speak well of their bravery. It is the bravery of a Muslim soldier that Indian Military got tough fight. These Pakistani Mard-e-Momin fought so hard that they had almost regained the control of East Pakistan from the dirty hands of Mukt-Bahini. When India saw this, She then started the military action which resulted in the fall of Dhaka.

Then  Mujib showed his true colors after the formation of Bangladesh with his BAKSAL party. How he became authoritative and usurped democracy is not a secret anymore. He was going to make Bangladesh part of India that he was killed timely by the Pakistani military officers (yes those Bengalis who never gave up allegiance to Pakistan. I stand in honor for them).

References:
1) Watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULpCroezFrY
2) Read “RAW in Bangladesh by ZainulAbidin (an ex-Mukti Bahini member) on 1971 war.
3) Read Blood and tears by a Pakistani writer about 1971 war.
4) Check the website of Federation of American Scientist on 1971 war
5) Read “East Pakistan Tragedy” by L.F. Rushbrook Williams.

Posted in UncategorizedComments (2)

Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose: The Forgotten Hero

The courageous Pakistan Army of 1971: Sarmila Bose

Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose: The Forgotten Hero
Sharmila Bose is niece of Netaji Bose the great Bharati nationalist Wikipedia

The courageous Pakistan army stand on the eastern front —Sarmila Bose

There is much for Pakistan to come to terms with what happened in 1971. But the answers don’t lie in unthinking vilification of the fighting men who performed so well in the war against such heavy odds in defence of the national policy. Rather, in failing to honour them, the nation dishonours itself.

My introduction to international politics was 1971, as a schoolgirl in Calcutta. Many images from that year are still etched in my mind, but the culminating one was the photo on Ramna racecourse of two men sitting at a table — the smart, turbaned Sikh, ‘our’ war-hero, Jagjit Singh Aurora, and the large man in a beret, A A K Niazi, commander of the other side, signing the instrument of surrender.

Nearly a generation later, a chance interview for the BBC with Lt Gen. Aurora took me back to 1971. The interview was not about 1971, but about injustices suffered by Sikhs at the hands of the state General Aurora had served. I thought he was a bigger hero for what he had to say then. That view was reinforced as I read — with incredulity — the disparaging remarks by other Indian officers about him, and each other, in their books. If this is what happened to the winning commander, I wondered what had happened to the other man in the photo. The result was a revelation.

It turns out that General Niazi has been my ‘enemy’ since the Second World War. As Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose and his Indian National Army fought on the Burma front in 1943-45 in their quest for India’s freedom, Niazi was fighting on the other side, for the British Indian Army, under the overall command of General (later Field Marshal) William Joseph Slim. Slim and his 14th Army halted the advance of the INA and the Japanese at the Imphal campaign and turned the course of the war.

In the process of inflicting military defeat upon my ancestor, Niazi’s performance was so exceptional that the British awarded him an on-the-spot Military Cross for action on the Assam-Burma front in June 1944. On another occasion they wanted to award a DSO, but he was too junior, so a Mention in Despatches was recorded. In the original record of his MC signed by his commanding officers all the way up to Slim, which I obtained from the British Ministry of Defence, the British commanders describe Niazi’s gallantry in detail: “He organized the attack with such skill that his leading platoon succeeded in achieving complete surprise over the enemy.” They speak of how he personally led his men, the ‘great skill and coolness’ under fire with which he changed tactics with changing circumstances, created diversionary attacks, extricated his wounded, defeated the enemy and withdrew his men by section, remaining personally at the rear in every case.

The British honoured Niazi for “personal leadership, bravery and complete disregard for his own personal safety.” On 15 December 1944 the Viceroy Lord Wavell flew to Imphal and in the presence of Lord Mountbatten knighted Slim and his corps commanders Stopford, Scoones and Christison. Only two ‘Indian’ officers were chosen to be decorated by the Viceroy at that ceremony — ‘Tiger’ Niazi was one of them.

In 1971 Niazi was a highly decorated Pakistani general, twice receiving the Hilal-e-Jurat. He was sent to East Pakistan in April 1971 — part of a sorry tradition in South Asia of political rulers attempting to find military solutions to political problems. By then Tikka Khan had already launched the crackdown of 25 March for which he has been known to Bengalis as the ‘butcher of Bengal’ ever since. The population of East Bengal was completely hostile and Pakistan condemned around the world.

Authoritative scholarly analyses of 1971 are rare. The best work is Richard Sisson and Leo Rose’s War and Secession. Robert Jackson, fellow of All Soul’s College, Oxford, wrote an account shortly after the events. Most of the principal participants did not write about it, a notable exception being Gen. Niazi’s recent memoirs (1998). Some Indian officers have written books of uneven quality — they make for an embarrassing read for what the Indians have to say about one another.

However, a consistent picture emerges from the more objective accounts of the war. Sisson and Rose describe how India started assisting Bengali rebels since April, but “the Mukti Bahini had not been able to prevent the Pakistani army from regaining control over all the major urban centers on the East Pakistani-Indian border and even establishing a tenuous authority in most of the rural areas.” From July to October there was direct involvement of Indian military personnel. “…mid-October to 20 November… Indian artillery was used much more extensively in support …and Indian military forces, including tanks and air power on a few occasions, were also used…Indian units were withdrawn to Indian territory once their objectives had been brought under the control of the Mukti Bahini — though at times this was only for short periods, as, to the irritation of the Indians, the Mukti Bahini forces rarely held their ground when the Pakistani army launched a counterattack.”

Clearly, the Pakistani army regained East Pakistan for their masters in Islamabad by April-May, creating an opportunity for a political settlement, and held off both Bengali guerrillas and their Indian supporters till November, buying more time — time and opportunity that Pakistan’s rulers and politicians failed to utilise.

Contrary to Indian reports, full-scale war between India and Pakistan started in East Bengal on 21 November, making it a four-week war rather than a ‘lightning campaign’. Sisson and Rose state bluntly: “After the night of 21 November…Indian forces did not withdraw. From 21 to 25 November several Indian army divisions…launched simultaneous military actions on all of the key border regions of East Pakistan, and from all directions, with both armored and air support.” Indian officers like Sukhwant Singh and Lachhman Singh write quite openly in their books about India invading East Pakistani territory in November, which they knew was ‘an act of war’.

None of the outside scholars expected the Eastern garrison to withstand a full Indian invasion. On the contrary, Pakistan’s longstanding strategy was “the defense of the east is in the west”. Jackson writes, “Pakistani forces had largely withdrawn from scattered border-protection duties into cleverly fortified defensive positions at the major centres inside the frontiers, where they held all the major ‘place names’ against Mukti Bahini attacks, and blocked the routes of entry from India…”

Sisson and Rose point out the incongruity of Islamabad tolerating India’s invasion of East Pakistani territory in November. On 30 November Niazi received a message from General Hamid stating, “The whole nation is proud of you and you have their full support.” The same day Islamabad decided to launch an attack in the West on 2 December, later postponed to 3 December, after a two-week wait, but did not inform the Eastern command about it. According to Jackson, the Western offensive was frustrated by 10 December.

Though futile, the Western offensive allowed India to openly invade the East, with overwhelming advantages. “ …despite all these advantages, the war did not go as smoothly and easily for the Indian army…”, but Sisson and Rose come to the balanced judgment that “The Pakistanis fought hard and well; the Indian army won an impressive victory.” Even Indian officers concede the personal bravery of Niazi and the spirited fight put up by the Pakistanis in the East. That the troops fought so well against such overwhelming odds is a credit both to them, and to their commanders, for an army does not fight well in the absence of good leadership.

However, as Jackson put it, “…India’s success was inevitable from the moment the general war broke out — unless diplomatic intervention could frustrate it.” As is well known, Pakistan failed to secure military or diplomatic intervention. Sisson and Rose also say, “The outcome of the conflict on the eastern front after 6 December was not in doubt, as the Indian military had all the advantages.” On 14 December Niazi received the following message from Yahya Khan: “You have fought a heroic battle against overwhelming odds. The nation is proud of you …You have now reached a stage where further resistance is no longer humanly possible nor will it serve any useful purpose… You should now take all necessary measures to stop the fighting and preserve the lives of armed forces personnel, all those from West Pakistan and all loyal elements…” Sisson and Rose naturally describe this message as “implying that the armed forces in East Pakistan should surrender”.

No matter how traumatic the outcome of 1971 for Pakistan, the Eastern command did not create the conflict, nor were they responsible for the failure of the political and diplomatic process. Sent to do the dirty work of the political manoeuvrers, the fighting men seem to have performed remarkably well against overwhelming odds. It is shocking therefore to discover that they were not received with honour by their nation on their return. Their commander, Niazi, appears to have been singled out, along with one aide, to be punished arbitrarily with dismissal and denial of pension, without being given the basic right to defend himself through a court-martial, which he asked for.

The commission set up allegedly to examine what had happened in 1971 was too flawed in its terms of reference and report to have any international credibility. However, even its recommendations of holding public trials and court-martials were ignored. There is much for Pakistan to come to terms with what happened in 1971. But the answers don’t lie in unthinking vilification of the fighting men who performed so well in the war against such heavy odds in defence of the national policy. Rather, in failing to honour them, the nation dishonours itself.

Sarmila Bose is Assistant Editor, Ananda Bazar Patrika, India & Visiting Scholar, Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University

http://www.sulekha.com/redirectnh.asp?cid=321517

Posted in Current AffairsComments (0)

Rear View of the Babri Mosque.

Indian terror group hits what it calls world’s ‘Greatest DemoNcracy'

Rear View of the Babri Mosque.
Hindustan Times reports on a message from the terror group: Indian Mujahideen attributes this attack to the 6th of December that will haunt your nation of world’s ‘Greatest DemoNcracy

The ephemeral and evasive local Indian group called “The Indian Mujahideen” has struck the heart of Bharat once again. The Indian Muslim group has carried out numerous terror attacks in Bharat over the past several years. The IM has waged a war all over Bhart–and is supposedly composed of young students of India.

The Hindustan Times reports on the latest act of violence carried out by the IM.

“Eye for an eye; the dust will never settle down”. Email sent by the Indian Mujahideen (IM) on September 13, 2008, the day Delhi was ripped by five synchronised bomb blasts that killed more than two dozen people. “As we bleed, so will you seep”. The email sent on September 19, 2010, after two tourists almost lost their lives outside the Delhi Jama Masjid.

“Lets feel the pain together.”

This latest email — sent on Tuesday, after the Varanasi blast — claims the explosion is a retaliation for the demolition of the Babri Masjid.

The similarity in the style of writing is difficult to miss. Sources say the mail might be written by Iqbal Bhatkal as he had written the earlier mails.

“Indian Mujahideen attributes this attack to the 6th of December that will haunt your nation of world’s ‘Greatest DemoNcracy’”, says Tuesday’s 5-page email that refers to the Allahabad HC judgment on Ayodhya and the “manhandling and heckling of the Kashmiri leadership in Indian cities”.

The email — dated 6th December — also blames the Congress for its “hidden agenda” and ridicules the clean chit to Gujarat CM Narendra Modi.

The IM logo, pasted in the beginning of the mails, was created in July 2008 on the instructions of Bhatkal by a techie and alleged IM operative Mubeen Kadar Shaikh. Also, at the bottom, there is a signature ‘Al-Arbi’, considered to be Bhatkal’s. Hindustan Times

Posted in Ind Muslims CA, India CAComments (0)

Categories

Archives