Connect with us

South Asia

A trial of the Taliban criminals must occur before we leave

Alexander Athos

Published

on

Without a trial of the Taliban criminals, both Afghanistan and the failed nuclear state of Pakistan will be exposed to the resurgence of their evil rule and malign global influence.

 

 Islamo-fascism poisons not only physically but also mentally. Taliban criminals must be put on trial.

Some elements within the Taliban have committed terrible crimes and those men who committed those crimes must be held to account before NATO-ISAF leave. It is unlikely that justice will be served by having the trials proceed in Afghanistan and in any case there is talk of a blanket amnesty by the Afghan government.

However while the International community is there they need to see that justice is done.

“The Taliban pounded on the door just before midnight, demanding that Aisha, 18, be punished for running away from her husband’s house. They dragged her to a mountain clearing near her village in the southern Afghan province of Uruzgan, ignoring her protests that her in-laws had been abusive, that she had no choice but to escape. Shivering in the cold air and blinded by the flashlights trained on her by her husband’s family, she faced her spouse and accuser.

Her in-laws treated her like a slave, Aisha pleaded. They beat her. If she hadn’t run away, she would have died. Her judge, a local Taliban commander, was unmoved. Later, he would tell Aisha’s uncle that she had to be made an example of lest other girls in the village try to do the same thing. The commander gave his verdict, and men moved in to deliver the punishment. Aisha’s brother-in-law held her down while her husband pulled out a knife. First he sliced off her ears. Then he started on her nose. Aisha passed out from the pain but awoke soon after, choking on her own blood. The men had left her on the mountainside to die.” {Time 29 Jul 2010]

Crimes against women like disfigurement, assault, starvation, “ rape, , sexual slavery, forced marriage, ethnic cleansing, the use of women to spread terror, particularly terror by threats of violence against women and/or their families…are crimes against humanity” [http://www.iccwomen.org/wigjdraft1/Archives/oldWCGJ/resources/cahreport.htm ]

What sickness of mind would allow or justify the Taliban’s execution by public hanging of a 7 year old boy which they did in Helmand province 2 years ago because they said he was a ‘spy’.

“I don’t think there’s a crime bigger than that, that even the most inhuman forces on earth can commit,” Hamid Karzai said . “A 7-year-old boy cannot be a spy. A 7-year-old boy cannot be anything but a 7-year-old boy” [NY Daily News 10 June 2010]

At the same time another Islam fascist fanatic detonated a suicide bomb at a wedding because there were Afghan police officers in the party. 40 Muslims were killed many of them small children another 77 were injured.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1285508/Taliban-execute-boy-seven-accused-spy.html

There are elements within Afghanistan that seek to grant a blanket general amnesty to all Taliban ‘fighters’ in an effort to promote reconciliation. This is a grave mistake. Fascists (whether Nazi’s or the Salafi/Deobondi-Takfiri-Jihadi kind) cannot be appeased nor rehabilitated. Giving them immunity only encourages even more outrageous acts of inhumanity because they know they are unaccountable. (When the democracies failed to stand up to the Fascists over Czechoslovakia it only emboldened them to commence wars of aggression against the rest of Europe and the slaughter of millions). Many parties and civil rights groups in Afghanistan oppose amnesty for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by the Taliban because it condones their extremism which is toxic for the Afghan society if it is to move forward.

The Islamo-fascists (both local Taliban, Pakistani Taliban and Arab Salafi-Takfiri Jihadi insurgents) have committed 75% of all civilian casualties in the Afghan War [see: UN Security Council reports as well as The Afghan Justice Project reports ] and continue to beat, poison and intimidate the ordinary Afghan people. Following on bombings in marketplaces, the Islamo Fascists also target schools.

Just this week in the Afghan province of Takhar the Taliban sprayed poison on 125 girls and three teachers, causing them to vomit and lose consciousness. This follows earlier equally horrific poisonings and killings including an incident in April in the same province when 170 women and girls were hospitalized when the Islamo- fascists poisoned their well because they refused to stop attending school and educating girls. Attacking girls and teachers who dare teach them has become a common tactic for the Taliban along with suicide bombings. Everyone must submit to their ideology or face the consequences.

This fascist tactic of extreme violence (just like the ongoing bombings in Iraq and throughout AF-PAK) to intimidate the population to force their rule has to be met with justice and not bullets.

Isalmo-fascism poisons not only physical wells but much worse ‘the well-springs of the mind’ of the poor people of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The terror they bring forces the population into subjugation mentally, physically and spiritually to the fascist tyranny.

Some think by NATO and its allies training the Afghan army and leaving the country everything will be all right. It won’t be. It has nothing to do with Non-Muslim soldiers leaving ‘Muslim’ lands. The Islamo-fascists are not Muslims just as Hitler’s devotees were not Christians; they are fanatics who inflict any cruelty and commit any crime to advance their politico-social agenda of subjugation of society to their ideology of hate.

Indeed it is likely that the Islamo-fascists will again attempt to gain control of the country by bombs, violence, threats and intimidation of the population, the majority of whom are Muslims no less than they do on the Pakistan side of the border.

The leadership and ideologues of Islamo-fascists in AF-PAK have committed and continue to commit crimes against humanity no less heinous than the Nazis between 1935 and 1945 and they do so against Muslims as well as people of other faiths.

Before NATO-ISAF leaves they must arrest and put on trial in the International Court of Justice or the International Criminal Court all those leaders including ideologues in Pakistan who created the Taliban as accessories (and insist that Pakistan Government deliver them over notwithstanding the opposition that will come from ISI). If he hadn’t committed suicide (which he did at the same time he killed his own 6 children) should Goebbels have escaped Nuremberg trials just because he used his tongue instead of a rifle to lead the Nazi state to disenfranchise, enslave and murder millions of people in 10 short years?

If these criminals are not brought to justice now, when NATO-ISAF leaves, what do you think the  Islamo-fascists will do? Of course they will together with their masters in Pakistan and beyond, reassert their terrible oppression mentally and physically over the people of Afghanistan as well as continuing to do so in Pakistan.

The fledgling army of Afghanistan will be ill equipped ideologically and sociologically to deal with the organized and extremely well financed Islamo-fascist machine orchestrated from within and without Afghanistan.

Drone attacks are not the answer against this evil because it too is an instrument of brutality in that many innocent people are sometimes killed and wounded and more importantly there is no trial to assert what is right and punish that which is wrong.

The Taliban criminality, (no less than the Einzatsgruppen criminality in imposing the Nazi ideology in Eastern Europe in World War II), has to  now be judged in open international court so the people can see that justice exists and have the strength to fight the Taliban darkness with the light of God and  a decent civil society free from the violence and barbarity of brainless fascist thugs whether they wear boots or sandals because both trample basic human rights underfoot and cover truth in the blood of innocents.

The people of AF-PAK deserve a ‘Kandahar’ Nuremberg style trial against the barbaric crimes of the Taliban which cannot be left unpunished if they are to be stopped.

In addition (just as they should be supported in our homelands when they speak out against similar Islamo- fascism), true religious leaders in AF-PAK have to be supported and protected when they come out and welcome the fact that those members of the Taliban who committed crimes against humanity are judged and condemned. Normative values of universal justice must be supported or the people will not be strong enough to stand against the rise again of the surge of the Islamo- fascists.

It must be dealt with by justice so that Afghanistan has at least a chance to steer away from the edge of madness again not just for the sake of the women and children but also our collective global security. You cannot leave the wasp nest in tact if you don’t want to be stung again.

NATO-ASAF have sacrificed too many men to leave the wells of AF-PAK poisoned.

NATO-ASAF may have cleaned up most of the top leadership of Al Qaeda (which is unfortunately just the tip of the Islamo-Fascist iceberg) but they have largely lost the war to the insurgent’s masters. They have failed because they have just been fighting the foot soldier insurgents (many of whom are not even Afghani) and have not gone after their masters. As with Vietnam, the allies had to fight with one hand tied behind their back and you cannot win a war that way. However not all is lost if the source of the enemy’s power is neutralized and that is the doctrine of Islamo-Fascism itself and the crimes against humanity it encourages (indeed demands) their devotees commit.

Without a trial of the Taliban criminals, both Afghanistan and the failed nuclear state of Pakistan will be exposed to the resurgence of their evil rule and malign global influence.

NATO-ISAF UNAMA still have the opportunity to redeem something out of the resources and sacrifices that have been poured into the region over the last ten years and leave a positive legacy for the people (not the least of whom are the poor women and girls) and an abiding security assurance for our homelands.

That legacy will not come with bullets, drone attacks or wishful thinking that the Afghan Army won’t be turned into an instrument of terror by the Islamo fascists when they return to power but with justice.

This will then give ordinary people in Afghanistan (including the Afghan Army) and also the suffering Muslims in Pakistan the moral and spiritual courage to face Islamo-Fascists when they come (and they surely will come) and clean out the poison from their wells and rebuild their society on foundations based on true Islam, human dignity for all peoples of all faiths including women and children.

Athos

June 2012

 http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-06-10/news/27066837_1_suicide-bomber-helmand-taliban

 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/10/world/asia/10afghanistan.html?_r=1

 http://www.afghanistanjusticeproject.org/

 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36261386/The-Taliban-s-Crimes-Against-Humanity-and-the-Women-of-Afghanistan

Alexander Athos is a writer and businessman.He was awarded a Bachelor of Arts (European History) Personal background Alexander was christened Orthodox brought up Catholic and now Evangelical Christian with an acceptance of the best in Christian tradition and a respect for genuine people of faith from other cultures. Political inclinations: Christian intellectual who has an eclectic predisposition to understanding global and national political and social trends and seeking to influence them for good by thoughtful and persuasive discourse.

Continue Reading
Comments

South Asia

Pointless Colonial Massacres and Post-Colonial Wars and Killings on the Indian Subcontinent

Dr. Arshad M. Khan

Published

on

Two colonial mass killings from the twentieth century are always remembered:  The Qissa Khwani Bazaar massacre on April 23, 1930 in Peshawar (then India, now in Pakistan) was the result of peaceful demonstrations protesting the arrest of Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan who had called for a nonviolent movement of ‘patience and righteousness.’  Authorities nervous at the size of the crowds called in the military.  The local Garhwal Rifles refused an order to fire.  A special city disturbance column and four armored cars were sent for;  they did not.  The number of dead vary with the source ranging from 20 to 400.  Whatever the figures, the incident legitimized the protest movement and creating a new Gandhi of the northwest in Ghaffar Khan. 

Pakistan since independence has had insurgencies — in the Northwest where Peshawar is located,in Baluchistan (ongoing) and, the worst of all in  its eastern half in 1971 that led to the birth of Bangladesh.  Estimates of casualties range from 300,000 to 3 million. 

This year is the centenary of the notorious Jallianwalla Bagh massacre in Amritsar.  April 13, 1919 was the day of Baisakhi, a major Sikh festival, so people had come to the holy city from surrounding Punjab villages and gathered to listen to speakers.  They were also unhappy with the deportation of independence leaders Dr. Saifuddinn Kitchlew and Dr. Satya Pal out of state to Dharamsala.  The protesters were mostly Sikh, the leaders being deported a Muslim and a Hindu, and India then secular in the minds of the people. 

Brig-General Reginald Dyer the local commander had banned all meetings.  To him the crowd gathering in the Bagh was a challenge to authority.  He took a contingent of Gurkha troops and proceeded forthwith to disperse what to him was an illegal assembly.  It is worth noting that Nepali Gurkhas are alien to the area, speak a different language, and look more like Tibetans.  The force took up positions on a raised bank at the main entrance and were ordered to fire on the unarmed crowd.  People tried to flee toward the other exits and in the stampede some were trampled.  Yet the firing continued for an incomprehensible ten whole minutes using up 1650 rounds and leaving hundreds dead and over a thousand wounded.

No respite for the Sikhs despite their anti-Muslim stance during the 1947 partition.  In 1984 following Indira Gandhi’s assassination by a Sikh bodyguard — itself a result of her military response killing Sikh religious zealots occupying the Amritsar Golden Temple — riots broke out.  An estimated 8000-17,000 Sikhs were killed in Delhi and Haryana.  The connivance of the Delhi police and the Congress party has long been suspected, and Human Rights Watch has complained of no prosecution for the killings.  Ditto for the perpetrators of the Muslim pogrom in Gujarat during Narendra Modi’s rule.

While the callousness of the Qissa Khwani Bazaar and Jallianwalla Bagh incidents horrifies, the number killed pales in comparison to what has happened since independence.  Within months of freedom, India invaded the independent principality of Hyderabad, allied to the British since the 18th century.  An estimated 200,000 people were killed and many fled to Pakistan.

It also invaded, occupied (1973) and then annexed Sikkim in 1975, a Himalayan foothill monarchy since 1642.  The suppressed independence movement in neighboring Assam and the Northeast and other ongoing insurgencies across at least a quarter of India continue. 

In Kashmir, a decades long struggle for some kind of autonomy has cost tens of thousands of lives.  Estimates vary from 40 to 80 thousand.  Some Indians have a conscience:  Long critical of India’s stance, the Booker Prize winning novelist and peace activist Arundhati Roy has called the Modi government ‘reckless’ in its policy there.

The Muslim minority in India appears to be intimidated and abused.  A recent feature story on Chamanganj, a Muslim neighborhood in Kanpur, illuminates the distress and discrimination experienced by Muslims.  The Congress candidate never visits; the BJP candidate shows up hoping to capture some votes but his party’s policy is notoriously anti-Muslim.

The violence against Christians is also on the rise.  Opendoorsusa.org reports over 12,000 incidents last year, while the number of churches attacked rose dramatically from 34 to 98.  It has now become the 10th most dangerous country in the world for Christians on the 2019 World Watch List.

A secular India, the pride of Indian independence leader and its first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru, is under threat.  In its place, a muscular Hindu nationalist agenda enforced by goons from nationalist organizations has been labeled “saffron terror”.  The Hudson Institute called these attacks “not inchoate mob violence, triggered by … insult; rather they involved careful planning by organized Hindu extremists …”

The record is surprising yet evident:  Independent India has killed hundreds of times more people than the Dyer atrocity, and the present-day Indian subcontinent is becoming a noticeable contrast to the relatively secular country of 1919.  In India itself, the Modi government and its affiliates by encouraging Hindu nationalism must shoulder the blame. 

Continue Reading

South Asia

The Durand Line Issue

Hareem Aqdas

Published

on

The Durand Line is a 2,200-kilometre debated border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. It was set up in 1893 between Sir Mortimer Durand, a British negotiator and respectful hireling of the British Raj, and Abdur Rahman Khan, the Afghan Amir, to settle the constrain of their individual circles of impact and make stride discretionary relations and exchange between the two nations. Afghanistan was considered by the British as a free state at the time, in spite of the fact that the British controlled its remote issues and discretionary relations. The single-page assertion, dated 12 November 1893, contains seven brief articles, counting a commitment not to work out obstructions past the Durand Line.

 A joint British-Afghan boundary overview took put beginning from 1894, covering a few 1,300 km of the border. Built up towards the near of the British-Russian “Great Game”, the coming about line set up Afghanistan as a buffer zone between British and Russian interface within the locale.

The line, as somewhat adjusted by the Anglo-Afghan Settlement of 1919, was acquired by Pakistan in 1947, taking after its independence. The forced Durand Line cuts through the Pashtun tribal ranges and assist south through the Balochistan locale, politically partitioning ethnic Pashtuns, as well as the Baloch and other ethnic bunches, who live on both sides of the border. It demarcates Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Balochistan and Gilgit-Baltistan of northern and western Pakistan from the northeastern and southern areas of Afghanistan.

From a geopolitical and geostrategic viewpoint, it has been depicted as one of the foremost unsafe borders within the world. Although Pakistan recognized the Durand Line as an international border, it remains to a great extent unrecognized by Afghanistan. In 2017, in the midst of cross-border pressures, previous Afghan President Hamid Karzai said that Afghanistan will “never perceive” the Durand Line as the international border between the two countries.

The Durand line remains a bone of contention between the two nations and a primary reason why Afghanistan and Pakistan have yet failed to establish cordial relations. Afghanistan claims a chunk of the KPK and Balochistan provinces of Pakistan on the basis that it was acceded to Pakistan, though it was originally a part of Afghanistan, with people dwelling on each sides having the same culture, language and way of life etc.

What is very clear is that relations between the two states have been tinged with hostility ever since Pakistan became an independent state in 1947. There are mainly two interrelated, historical reasons for this: the problem of the “Durand Line” — the shared but disputed border of the two countries; and Afghan support for the “Pakhtoonistan” movement in Pakistan’s North West Frontier Province (NWFP)

The questions is answered by both nations with a bias towards their respective national interest in mind, both Pakistan and Afghanistan claiming areas divided by the Durand line as their legitimate part.

Major accusations of Afghanistan over the Durand line are: its legitimacy period has terminated; it was in the original agreement between the British and the Afghans claimed its validity only for 100 years, which has expired. Nevertheless, neither Afghan government, nor the foremost dynamic advocates of this see have ever displayed any plain instrument demonstrating their claim. Nor do we discover, upon looking at the pertinent archives, i.e. the Durand Line assertion and the rest of the records confirmed until 1896 by the individual committees for assurance and boundary of the British-Afghan border, any arrangement confining the term of the understanding to 100 year time. It is undoubtedly a riddle how this supposition might spread over the nation without being addressed at all.

Another claim of Afghanistan in the de-legitimizing the boarded is that the assertions relating to it collapsed when the British exchanged powers to Pakistan. The agreement was done with British India and not with Pakistan. This was a main reason that Afghanistan was one of the very few countries that opposed the addition of Pakistan in the UN- since it alleged it of illegally annexing Afghanistan’s territory.

One more accusation to not accept the boarder comes as the understandings were persuasively forced upon Afghanistan-it is ethically unmerited- is certainly an issue worth encourage talk and contention. In any case, whereas one may concede the dispute to be fair and genuine, it remains deficiently to refute the status of the Durand Line as an international border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Durand Line understanding of 1893 isn’t the sole point of reference in border assessment. At slightest other four assertions (of 1905, 1919, 1921 and 1930), which had the assent of both sides, must be counseled. Clearly, Afghanistan cannot claim that all of the afterward four assertions were concluded in a coercive environment, particularly the Kabul 1921 understanding for foundation of neighborly commercial relations, which not as it were marked but approved in 1922, and beneath which disobedience was traded by the agents of both states in Kabul.

The boarder is not rejected by any other party of the world except Afghanistan itself, making the Afghan case further weakened.

No matter how much Afghanistan retaliates over this matter, the Durand line is widely accepted as an international boarder and the afghan claim will likely not bear fruit. The Afghans should rather hold the British accountable for the “so said” unfair distribution and not Pakistan, since Pakistan did not decide into this matter at all but was a decision purely made between the Afghans and the British- rather battle the British towards their claim and not make this a political issue more than a legitimate claim.

Continue Reading

South Asia

Indian Nuclear Explosions of May 98 and Befitting Response

Dr. Anjum Sarfraz

Published

on

India started nuclear program soon after independence. The Atomic Energy Act was passed on 15 April 1948, leading to the establishment of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC).  The Prime Minister (PM), Jawaharlal Nehru declared: “We must develop this atomic energy quite apart from war indeed;I think we must develop it for the purpose of using it for peaceful purposes. … Of course, if we are compelled as a nation to use it for other purposes, possibly no pious sentiments of any of us will stop the nation from using it that way.” Indian intentions to develop a nuclear device for military use under the garb of ambivalence were there since independence. Dr. Homi Bhabha was the first secretary who is considered the founder of this program.

The IAEC established a new facility   in January 1954, the Atomic Energy Establishment, Trombay (AEET); later in August 1954 the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) was created with Dr. Bhabha as Director to function directly under PM. The AEET facility was renamed asBhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) in January 1967 after the death of Homi Bhabha. On May 18, 1974, India conducted an underground nuclear test at Pokharan in the Rajasthan desert, codenamed “Smiling Buddha.” The government of India claimed it a peaceful test, but it was actually part of an accelerated weapons program. The world reaction was not strong as expected.  United stated and Canada criticized the test as they had provided aid to India for nuclear project which was supposed to be for peaceful purposes. Later on due to violation of understanding between two countries, Canada withdrew assistance to India.  Chinese stance was that it would affect the stability in South Asia. After this event, Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) was established which gives guidelines to regulate the transfer of sensitive nuclear material. However, India continued pursuing vigorously its nuclear program to develop weapons of mass destruction. 

During election campaign in February 1998, the Bhartia Janata Party (BJP) had announced in its manifesto that if elected it would seek to “exercise option to induct nuclear weapons”. The PM, Atal Bihari Vajpayee of BJP, gave orders to conduct nuclear tests on 11 and 13 May 1998. A total 5 nuclear devices were exploded. The Indian PM, very proudly claimed that India has become sixth nuclear weapon state and should be treated by the world. Indian stance towards Pakistan drastically changed. The senior Indian hierarchy started giving provocative statements against Pakistan. The Indian home Minister L.K Advani said, “Islamabad should realize the change in the geo- strategic situation in the region and the world. It must roll back its anti- India policy especially with regard to Kashmir.”  The Corps Commander in Indian occupied Kashmir held an unprecedented news conference and advocated his plans to attack Azad Kashmir across the LOC. The world reaction to Indian nuclear explosion was not as strong as envisioned. Extracts from the President Clinton speech from CNN broad cast of 12 May 1998, are,“I am deeply disturbed by the nuclear tests which India has conducted and I do not believe it contributes to a safer 21st century. The action by India not only threatens the stability of the region, it directly challenges the firm, international consensus to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.”The other major world powers also showed reluctance in penalizing India.

2.The Pakistan atomic energy program was started much later as compared to India. The Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) was established in 1956 to participate in Atoms for Peace Program announced by the US administration. The program continued at slow pace for peaceful use till detonation by India in 1974. This strategic development was perhaps the first that pushed Pakistan in the direction of nuclear tests in May 1998.  Dr A Q khan joined the program  in 1976and founded the Engineering Research Laboratories (ERL) later renamed Khan Research Laborites ( KRL)  at Kahuta near Islamabad, with the exclusive task of indigenous development of Uranium Enrichment Plant.  According to Carey Sublette, “Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons Program Development,” Nuclear Weapons Archive, January 2, 2002, the nuclear program of Pakistan developed speedily in 1980s and it had conducted the first cold tests of its nuclear device in 1983. According to Presseler amendment of 1985, Pakistan was required to get a certificate from the President of USA that it did not possess nuclear device for getting economic and military aid from USA, which was not signed by the President in 1990. Hence the aid to Pakistan was stopped. It happened soon after former USSR left Afghanistan.

3.On 11 may 1998 when India conducted first 3 nuclear tests, the PM of Pakistan, Nawaz Sharif, was on official visit to Kazakhstan. The Defense Committee of the Cabinet(DCC) convened on 13 May was chaired by PM, attended by the federal ministers and three services chiefs (Gen Jahangir Karamat was CJCSC as well). Dr. Samar Mubarakmand represented PAEC in place of Dr. Ishfaq, the chairman who was abroad, and Dr A Q Khan, the KRL. At closing of the meeting it was informed that India has conducted another nuclear test. The political, military, economic and technical considerations were obviously discussed thread bare. The political and military leadership was on the same page in the decision making process. Gohar Ayub the foreign minister present in the meeting writes in book, “Testing Times”, page 35, that when Raja Zafar ul Haq asked General Jahangir Karamat for his views, he said “we could match India, but the decision to do so would have to be a political one”. Dr. Samar Mubarakm and gave ten days’ time for preparations to conduct the tests. The site and tunnel had already been selected.

On 18 May, after a lot of deliberations with different segments of the society and the opposition parties, the PM gave go ahead to Chairman PAEC to test nuclear bombs on 28 May 98.   This was a unanimous decision of national importance. The government and military leadership, opposition parties, and general public were firmly on the same page.  The PAEC team headed by Dr. Samar under the supervision of Army Corps of Engineers sealed the tunnels on 25 May. On the evening of 27 May the site was made ready for tests and conveyed to PM. Seventeen days starting from 11 May when India conducted first test till Pakistan responded on 28 May were very critical for the PM, Foreign office and GHQ. They were mulling over ways and means to allay the international pressure in the form of sanctions, and attimes lucrative offers for economic aid in lieu. The President of USA called, PM several times to convince him not to go nuclear.

On 27 May a day before nuclear detonation he called our PM several times. A presentation by the participants of War and National Defence Courses,(1997-98), was scheduled on 28 May at 1000 in National Defence College (NDC) now NDU for the PM which was attended by the ministers and services chiefs.  The writer of this article was undergoing war course and present in the auditorium. The topic words to affect was “Should Pakistan Conduct Nuclear Explosions or Exercise Restraints”. Points against the detonation were, weak economic conditions, will further worsen after slapping of economic sanctions.  Points given by the panel to conduct explosions were much stronger. The panel concluded presentation saying, “Now or Never”. There was a big applause.  The environments prevalent in the auditorium, and smiling faces of the senior hierarchy indicated that Pakistan will carry out nuclear tests very soon. The same evening at 3:15pm, Pakistan gave befitting response to 5 Indian nuclear explosions conducted on 11 and 13 May 98, by exploding 5 nuclear bombs and sixth on 30 May at 11:55am. After successful explosions the PM claimed that Pakistan has become seventh nuclear state.  

Continue Reading

Latest

Hotels & Resorts29 mins ago

Hyatt Regency Brand to Enter the Portuguese Market with Hyatt Regency Lisbon

Hyatt Hotels Corporation announced today that a Hyatt affiliate has entered into a franchise and related agreements with Realtejo –...

South Asia2 hours ago

Pointless Colonial Massacres and Post-Colonial Wars and Killings on the Indian Subcontinent

Two colonial mass killings from the twentieth century are always remembered:  The Qissa Khwani Bazaar massacre on April 23, 1930...

Science & Technology4 hours ago

Are robots sexist? UN report shows gender bias in talking digital tech

Why do most voice assistants have female names, and why do they have submissive personalities? The answer, says a new...

Green Planet9 hours ago

WWF Launches Activation Hub to Help Prevent 10 Million Metric Tons of Global Plastic Waste

The global plastic pollution crisis is threatening the natural environment on which we depend – impacting oceans, communities, wildlife, and...

EU Politics13 hours ago

Erasmus+: a turning point in the lives of 5 million European students

New evidence shows that Erasmus+ makes students more successful in their personal and professional lives and helps universities to become...

Middle East16 hours ago

Iran vs. US: Bracing for war?

On May 8, 2018, President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), better...

Defense18 hours ago

Turkey is the Guarantor of Peace in the Black Sea region

The wider Black Sea region—which brings together the littoral states plus neighbouring countries—is experiencing a rapidly shifting security environment that...

Trending

Copyright © 2019 Modern Diplomacy