[Reader-list] 140,000 troops in FATA

yasir ~يا سر yasir.media at gmail.com
Wed May 5 12:59:28 IST 2010 

sorry the policies of the govt may not reflect the will of the people, if
democracy is weak. its gotten better with a freer media influencing the
government over the last 10 years.

if you dont have regular elections, the only other way for a govt,
especially military govt to stay in touch with people in through
intelligence gathering by intelligence agencies operating within the
country. and in pakistan they have ALWAYS manipulated the election to get
the desired results out of parliamentarians careers. imagine majors and
colonels negotiating with to be elected parliamentarians about what they
want or else. the last election was a bit better, but we need several cycles
before the corrupt get cleared or adapt. believe it or not this is how
disconnected we are. there is an insurgency inbaluchistan, there are
separatist movements, and a war in khyber-pakhtunkhwa, and then, a huge
population that is totally disconnected from any political process, who are
the majority of the people of pakistan and have absolutely no expectation of
the govt. In the recent 18th Amendment to the Constitution, they have
dropped the requirement for political parties to have internal elections.
Just imagine what kind of people are sitting in govt. I cannot call them
representative. i am sure it is just a little bit different in india.




On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 11:43 AM, Bipin Trivedi <aliens at dataone.in> wrote:

> Dear Yasir,
>
> How can you make people and others separate? From where foreign policy
> maker or politician and army comes? Ultimately they come from public only
> and they are citizen of Pakistan. Generation after generation came as
> politician and army and these new generation is from people only who is now
> policy maker or in army. So, its ultimately echo of Pakistan people only.
> Please understand these real truth before making such argument of separating
> the both.
>
> Thanks
> Bipin
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: reader-list-bounces at sarai.net [mailto:reader-list-bounces at sarai.net]
> On Behalf Of yasir ~?? ??
> Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2010 3:35 AM
> To: Sarai Reader-list
> Subject: Re: [Reader-list] 140,000 troops in FATA
>
> once again you have deliberately missed the point, as impossible as it is
> to
> do both at the same time. My point was about the people not the foreign
> policy, not the army, yet you choose to mix them up, because thats what you
> are refusing top separate, and see the separate entinities of the people,
> the army, the govts. we are not radically democratic, only mildly so
> electing the same people from the same classes, when the army is not
> actively interfering in the vote counts,or runninga martial regime.. i
> suggest you reread what i wrote. i dont find it of use to go in the
> directions you are suggesting, since you have missed the sole point of it.
> your nationalism blinds you to your own hierarchical and class realities,
> you cannot breathe without. in fact it shows your inability to speak about
> it. enough said.
>
> Buck up. perfect perfect perfect.
>
>
> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 6:16 PM, Bipin Trivedi <aliens at dataone.in> wrote:
>
> > Yes Kshemendra, you are perfectly right and good point of argument
> raised.
> > Keep it up.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: reader-list-bounces at sarai.net [mailto:
> reader-list-bounces at sarai.net]
> > On Behalf Of Kshmendra Kaul
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 6:09 PM
> > To: Sarai Reader-list; yasir ~يا سر
> > Subject: Re: [Reader-list] 140,000 troops in FATA
> >
> > Dear Yasir
> >
> > From 'Blame-USA' you move to "Blame-India". "Land of the Pure",
> Pakistan's
> > favorite pastime; blame everyone else but itself.
> >
> > Your viewpoint of 'history' between India and Pakistan starts from 1971.
> >
> > Remember 1947-48 when Maharaja of Kashmir had to sign the "Instrument of
> > Accession" because Pakistan broke the "Standstill Agreement" which
> (unlike
> > India) it had signed on? In a manner of speaking, India did not 'eat up'
> > Kashmir but Pakistan offered it to India.
> >
> > Remember 1965 and Pakistan's 'Operation Gibraltar'? (Read Ikram Sehgal's
> > http://www.defencejournal.com/jul99/gibraltor-2.htm)
> >
> > Yet India was kind to Pakistan in 1971 and returned the 90,000 POWs
> without
> > getting anything in return. Rather the idiocy of Indira Gandhi in
> trusting
> > whatever Bhutto had promised her.
> >
> > Yet, the never to be trusted Pakistan went in for the sneaky Kargil
> > operation.
> >
> > Pakistan's build-up of Military capabilities (and connected Budgets) has
> as
> > much and more to do with it's Islamic ambitions ('thekedaar' of Islam) as
> it
> > has to do with threat perceptions from India that it itself has provoked.
> >
> > By your logic, with India's inimical relations with China, India should
> be
> > trying to match the Defence Budget of China and more since there are two
> > 'enemies' to contend with, China and Pakistan.
> >
> > India's defence expenditure happens to be a lower percentage of it's GDP
> > when compared to Pakistan. From 2.5% of GDP in 06-07, it has come dowm to
> > 2.30% in 09-10 and 2.12% in 10-11.
> >
> > And yes, please make up your mind. Did India 'eat up' Hyderabad&Junagad
> or
> > Kashmir? Any logic justifying claim of 'eat up' of one would contradict
> > itself when applied to the other.
> >
> > Kshmendra
> >
> > --- On Mon, 5/3/10, yasir ~يا سر <yasir.media at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: yasir ~يا سر <yasir.media at gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Reader-list] 140,000 troops in FATA
> > To: "Sarai Reader-list" <reader-list at sarai.net>
> > Date: Monday, May 3, 2010, 8:21 PM
> >
> >
> > no sorry you totally got that from an enemy perspective. please get this
> > right.
> >
> > if you ask us, we will tell you the following:
> > the people of pakistan are the real victim, when the govt of pakistan,
> the
> > pakistan army, sold itself to the united states, becoming a mercenary
> state
> > for them. the relation is completely one-sided. what development in real
> > terms have we seen, take any indicator. why are we worse off with many
> > systems existing and functioning back in the postpartition days woefully
> > nonexistent or malfunctional, let alone any new systems. the answer is
> > quite
> > severe. we have a military budget which has to deal with india which is
> > many
> > itimes its size and (had been) eadger to destabilize it after breaking it
> > up
> > into 2 in 1971, and which had earlier eaten up hyderabad and kashmir. so
> we
> > are now doomed to military spending which comes anyway from the US,
> leaving
> > little in the way of major public projects which could have benefited
> > people
> > at large. Government spending was eaten by the military. if you imagine
> > what
> > kind of a present society we could have been if we had not stuck to this
> > stupid military buildup (you can eveluate your own side). so the war on
> > terror is just another day, another cloud. but it follows the covert US
> > action in Afghanistan against the Soviets using Afghanis and Pakistanis
> > then
> > disappearing for a decade and showing up again this time because the
> > militancy the americans had started, charlie wilson's war starring tom
> > cruise, could not be put out and took the wtc with it. sorry there is no
> > conspiracy here. we are getting the blame 'for not doing enough' and then
> > we
> > have to deal with your pearls of wisdom strewn from across the border.
> >
> > so dear KK, we are not asking for blood money. we are saying:  having
> > destroyed the region, you better build it up now, to what it should be
> > like.
> > i think this is not only possible, but also a moral responsility of the
> US
> > in no uncertain terms. and we dont trust them either because of this
> > history.
> >
> > best
> >
> > y
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Kshmendra Kaul <kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > USA also pays "Blood Money" to Pakistan which Pakistan accepts very
> > > gratefully.
> > >
> > > In fact there is a constant clamour by many in Pakistan : "You are not
> > > paying us enough!!!! We want more!!!! We want more!!!!"
> > >
> > > --- On *Mon, 5/3/10, yasir ~يا سر <yasir.media at gmail.com>* wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > From: yasir ~يا سر <yasir.media at gmail.com>
> > > Subject: Re: [Reader-list] 140,000 troops in FATA
> > > To: "Sarai Reader-list" <reader-list at sarai.net>
> > > Date: Monday, May 3, 2010, 1:53 PM
> > >
> > > one needs to add much salt here:
> > >
> > >
> > >    - reporters are not allowed, you only get the official army version
> > >    - civilian casualties are 'normal', very high and not reported,
> > > including
> > >    extra judicial killings and right violations
> > >    - the number of internally displaced people is huge, frequently not
> > > taken
> > >    care of by anyone let alone by govt
> > >    - the motivation in no small measure comes from the US pressuring
> the
> > PK
> > >    army to show that action is being taken, which frequently leads to
> > > unstable
> > >    conditions, rather than working with local actors with a long term
> > view,
> > >    while dealing with a guerrilla like militancy.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 11:30 AM, S. Jabbar <sonia.jabbar at gmail.com<
> > http://us.mc572.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=sonia.jabbar@gmail.com>>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > FRONT-PAGE
> > > > ŒPakistan has moved 100,000 troops from eastern border¹
> > > >
> > > > By Our Correspondent
> > > >
> > > > Friday, 30 Apr, 2010 | 01:38 AM PST |
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > WASHINGTON: Pakistan has deployed 140,000 troops in Fata, moving at
> > least
> > > > 100,000 soldiers from the Indian border to back up its
> Œunprecedented¹
> > > > crackdown on militants along the Afghan border, says a Pentagon
> report.
> > > >
> > > > In its mandatory report to the US Congress on the situation in the
> > > > Pakistan-Afghan region, the Pentagon notes that the deployment is the
> > > > biggest in the country¹s history on the western border.
> > > >
> > > > ³This unprecedented deployment and thinning of the lines against
> India
> > > > indicates that Islamabad has acknowledged its domestic insurgent
> > threat.²
> > > >
> > > > The Pentagon also acknowledges that Pakistani military operations in
> > the
> > > > tribal regions have had an impact across the border, placing a ³high
> > > degree
> > > > of pressure on enemy forces and reduced insurgent safe haven² in
> > eastern
> > > > Afghanistan.
> > > >
> > > > The Pentagon informs Congress that recent arrests by Pakistan of
> Afghan
> > > > Taliban leaders, including the group¹s No. 2, Mullah Abdul Ghani
> > Baradar,
> > > > have ³increased insurgent leaders¹ concern over the security of their
> > > safe
> > > > havens² and created ³financial and logistical² problems for them.
> > > >
> > > > This assessment contrasts sharply with the Afghan claim ‹ backed by
> > India
> > > ‹
> > > > that the arrests have weakened Kabul¹s efforts to seek a negotiated
> > > > settlement with the Taliban leadership.
> > > >
> > > > The report quotes a senior US defence official as saying that the
> > arrests
> > > > in
> > > > Pakistan produced ³a lot of concerned chatter² among Taliban
> > sympathisers
> > > > in
> > > > Afghanistan, but there¹s no indication of ³a leadership crisis in the
> > > > Taliban².
> > > >
> > > > The Pentagon notes that so far the crackdown in Pakistan is focused
> > > almost
> > > > exclusively on internal threats and that¹s why it¹s not having any
> > > > ³significant impact on the Afghan insurgency in the short term².
> > > >
> > > > But the crackdown ³offers opportunities in coming months to have a
> > > greater
> > > > impact on the conflict in Afghanistan depending on how PAKMIL
> > (Pakistani
> > > > military) operations evolve,² the report adds.
> > > >
> > > > ³Pakistan has suffered attacks from terrorists in response to its
> > > > successful
> > > > operations. These attacks include mass casualty events in Mingora,
> > South
> > > > Waziristan agency close to clearing operations as well as in Lahore,
> > far
> > > > away from the fighting. ³While these attacks do not appear to have
> > shaken
> > > > Pakistan¹s commitment, they do demonstrate, for the time being,
> > insurgent
> > > > ability to continue attacks despite successful Pakistani operations,²
> > the
> > > > report warns.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> front-page/pakistan-has-moved-100,000-troops-from-indian-border-pentagon-040<
> > >
> >
> http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/%0Afront-page/pakistan-has-moved-100,000-troops-from-indian-border-pentagon-040
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Copyright © 2010 - Dawn Media Group
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _________________________________________
> > > > reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> > > > Critiques & Collaborations
> > > > To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net<
> >
> http://us.mc572.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=reader-list-request@sarai.net
> > >with
> > > > subscribe in the subject header.
> > > > To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> > > > List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
> > > _________________________________________
> > > reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> > > Critiques & Collaborations
> > > To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net<
> >
> http://us.mc572.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=reader-list-request@sarai.net
> >with
> > subscribe in the subject header.
> > > To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> > > List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > _________________________________________
> > reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> > Critiques & Collaborations
> > To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with
> > subscribe in the subject header.
> > To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> > List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
> >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________
> > reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> > Critiques & Collaborations
> > To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with
> > subscribe in the subject header.
> > To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> > List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
> >
> > _________________________________________
> > reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> > Critiques & Collaborations
> > To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with
> > subscribe in the subject header.
> > To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> > List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
> >
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with
> subscribe in the subject header.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
>
>

More information about the reader-list mailing list