From: "Riaz Jafri" <jafri@rifiela.com>
To: "Ikram Sehgal" <defjrnl@pathfinder.com.pk>
Subject: Letter to Editor - Sectarian Tolerance
Date: Monday, February 24, 2003 4:53 PM

Dear Ikram Sehgal

Sectarian Tolerance
Wanton killing of 7 innocent mosque-goers the other day in Karachi could never by any stretch of imagination be termed as a pro-Islamic act by any Muslim. The perpetrators of such a crime could only be either the paid terrorists commissioned by some anti-Pakistan foreign power or in an extreme case some misguided youth totally brainwashed by some fanatic half literate Mullahs completely devoid of the true Islamic knowledge and spirit. Islam, as the very name symbolises, is the religion of peace. It while advocating its followers to raise arms in the name of Allah to defend Islam, strictly forbids them from indulging in any excesses, particularly against the weak, the sick, the old, the children and the women. Qura'n though allows eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth yet, it advises to forgive the enemy 'for it is better, if you know it'. Then, how can a Muslim kill innocent people and that too while they are entering a mosque for the prayers?! Surely, it is an act of some anti-Islamic and anti-Pakistan beings.
Qura'n also strictly forbids killing of a Muslim by a Muslim and this fact is (unfortunately) known to all. Then, could it be that the assassins consider their victims not to be Muslims? If so be the case, who is to be blamed for it? Who has put such heinous thoughts into their heads? Apart from the obvious half-baked ignorant clergy, our social customs and religious rituals are equally to be blamed for it. They unwittingly enlarge the distance between us all. How many of us dare not to stand aloof, holding the date in the fingers waiting for still more dusk to fall, at an Iftar while the others have broken their fast ? How many of us would not stretch open our arms in offering the funeral prayer of a friend or colleague in a mixed Nimaz-e-Jinaza?
Some would even like to abstain from joining the Nimaz led by an Aalim of the other sect. It is almost comical to see various small groups of the faithfuls offering their prayers on the lawns of the Parliament house behind different Ulemas belonging to different schools of thought, though in essence all Muslims. Strict adherence to such insignificant rituals and beliefs is what is enlarging the gulf between the Muslims. What happens in the Hajj? Who all lead the prayers there? Who all deliver the Khutabas there? If it can happen there why can't it be here? What heavens will fall if all delay breaking of their fast a little if the host cannot overcome his inhibition or cannot muster the courage to break his fast a little earlier in unison with the most invitees to the Iftar by him? Why not make it customary to perform such small rituals in consonance with the practice of the host, or the Aalim leading the prayers, or according to majority present on the occasion. Let Shias fold their arms in prayers and the Sunnis open their arms if the occasion so warrants. Can our religious scholars rise to the occasion to 'permit' so? I assure them all that no one will get converted to the other sect by doing so. Has any of our ministers become a Sikh by joining the Sikh congregations in Nankana Sahib or Panja Sahib? For God's sake be a little liberal, accommodating and tolerant in performing your ordinary rituals. This will certainly bring all Muslims closer to each other as it used to be in the pre-partitioned days.

Yours truly,
Col. Riaz Jafri (Retd)
30, Westridge-1, Rawalpindi 46000

From: "Riaz Jafri" <jafri@rifiela.com>
To: "Ikram Sehgal" <defjrnl@pathfinder.com.pk>
Subject: Letter to Editor - Gen. Jahangir Karamat
Date: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 11:53 AM

Dear Ikram Sehgal

General Jahangir Karamat
It was disgusting to see the other day a fat looking guy on a TV channel (probably UNI Plus) maligning General Jahangir Karamat for 'aiding' the attack on the Supreme Court by not sending the troops when asked by the Chief Justice. The gentleman being interviewed was probably President of some Bar Council. I simply pity the Bar that he presides upon. May I ask this learned and legal lordship the following?

1. Is the CJ or for that matter other government functionaries authorised to ask for military protection on their own or should they route such request through the Ministry of Defence?

2. Supposing, had the troops been sent in this case and had the situation developed later as it did, what should have been the orders for the troops to do? Open fire or just stand and watch?

3. Does the learned Bar President know that even when troops are called 'In Aid of Civil Power', they cannot open fire on a mob unless ordered by the Magistrate accompanying them?

"Gar hameen maktab-o-mulla bowadd - kaar-e tifflan tamam khawahad shud".

Pakistan Zindabad
U for Unity.

Col. Riaz Jafri (Retd)
30, Westridge-1,
Rawalpindi 46000
Tel: (051) 546 3344
E.Mail: jafri@rifiela.com

From: "sadi gilani" <sadigilani@hotmail.com>
To: <editor@defencejournal.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 12:47 PM
Subject: Letter from Lt Col (Retd) M A Gilani

Mr.Ikram ul-Majeed Sehgal

Sir,
I wholeheartedly admire your declination for accepting nomination as PML(Q) candidate for the Senate election. You have been bold and upright by refusing political shackle of intrigue, dictation and lavish benefits. Your refusal has enhanced your stature as an independent journalist and analyzer of our political, economic and foreign policy follies. Needless to say that DJ will continue to highlight truth and constructive criticism in your enviable style.

Yours sincerely

Lt Col (R) M A Gilani

Dear Editor:

I came across Pakistan Defence Journal on the web, and have found it very interesting and instructive. I appreciate your valuable service for all those with an interest in obtaining a glimpse of Pakistani strategic thought.
Regarding Ms. Nasim Zehra's analysis of New Delhi's Pakistan policy in your January '03 issue, I was struck by its absence of recognition of the sea change that took place in Indian strategic thinking on the Pakistan-Kashmir nexus, post-Kargil and post-Agra: Indian policymakers have now come to believe that the military-run Pakistani policy establishment is inextricably trapped by its grandiose obsession of "liberating" Kashmir, and, by extension, all of India's Muslim population, from what Pakistan views as the Hindu yoke. In the Indian perspective, this pathological (to Indian eyes, needless to add) vision is the primary raison d'etre of Pakistan's military, and the Pakistani state, which has blithely sponsored the worst kind of terrorist atrocities, most of them directed against Hindus.
It is interesting to read Ms. Zehra's article and find no attempt at introspection as to what responsibility Pakistan bears for engendering such a broadly-held perception in India. Instead, one only finds lofty and sneering contempt for genuine Indian outrage against Pakistan's attacks. If instead, Ms. Zehra had attempted to recognize this underlying premise of Indian policymakers, it might have resulted in a clearer understanding of the Indian policy, which is evident to any Indian following the Kashmir issue over the past year.
The policy's goals consist of (a) systematically marginalizing Pakistan's role in the Kashmir imbroglio (hence the elections and change of government, hence the efforts to persuade the APHC to participate in talks without Pakistan), and (b) making Pakistan pay a price for its attempts to aggressively sustain and enhance its role in Kashmir. To work, the policy relies on what is perceived by India as Pakistan's ideological and economic bankruptcy.
Incidentally, Ms. Zehra's belief that India's current hard line towards Pakistan is the consequence of the BJP's electoral ambitions, betrays her naivete regarding the actual workings of the Indian system. While it may be true that politicians will not scrupleto use any and all issues that avail them in elections, serious national security policies are primarily the outcome of professional inputs and analysis, and are hardly driven by transient electoral compulsions.
It has been said that, to fight a war as well as to achieve a genuine peace, it is necessary for each party to be capable of some degree of genuine understanding of, and empathy for, the perceptions of the other. This is a tough human challenge, one that the Pakistani intelligentsia is yet to master, apparently.

Sincerely,
K.V. Bapa Rao

From: "Hasan Rashid" <hasan.rashid@mail.com>
To: <defjrnl@pathfinder.com.pk>
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 3:41 PM
Subject: Keep your powder dry

Dear Sir,
I am writing in response to your article in DJ titled "Keep your powder dry" Pakistan is in dire need of a better conventional force we have been very much prone to overlooking our mistakes and always cover-up saying that "Coward Indians ran away from the battleground" well if this was the case always then we should not have lost any war whereas to the effect we lost all the wars, I live in US and clearly everyone here sees Pakistan as a terrorist state and Indians as the truthful democracy and Gandhi as the champion of peace, and Ravi Shankar as the voice of the soul.
Pakistan conventional force is outnumbered and technologically inferior western powers have never ever considered Pakistan a desirable state, so we need to overcome our weaknesses. Our forces are clearly not trained for the hi-tech battle of future. As it has been clear from day to day that Indian planes and UAV Pakistan's airspace and then they go back home safely and Pakistan being unable to shoot them down. Every successful mission they complete inside Pakistan's airspace is a big setback to Pakistan.
India will have all the advantage as India will have the clear support of Russia, USA and Israel in terms of electronic warfare, satellite intelligence and in case of war, USA will provide India with a very effective defensive system for ballistic missiles. Indians here now after 50 years are in policy making places and think tanks, so the balance is heavily tilted in favour of India.
USA being the most undesirable ally for Pakistan and procuring of defence equipment from USA is a suicide. Hence we need to train our forces to fight in the modern warfare where psychological warfare and propaganda and hi-tech exploits are the weapons more dangerous than tanks and bullets.
We have come a long way in missile technology but still its very immature, we need to develop multiple warhead missiles which could spoof or defend against anti-missile systems and we clearly need to develop an anti-satellite system and a satellite tracking station which is an urgent need to protect strategic and tactical compromises because of the high quality intelligence, We should also go ahead and develop H bomb we are in dire need of a H bomb as India got a 1-billion population so if they can eliminate us from the world map we should also possess such capability to take them with us, it will be the best deterrent. If we have achieved such huge advances in missile technology then we should also achieve these
anti-satellite systems and H bomb.
PAF needs new planes, as only planes can counter planes, no SAMs systems can do the job of planes. This is the war of survival against a determined and cunning enemy who is not alone. We always talk about our Muslim friends but we always forgot that when they have supported us. This is our war of survival we will have to fight it alone.
Pakistan is based on ideology and our survival is based on that ideology if we don't defend or stop believing in it then we should not have fought for the creation of Pakistan in the first place. We shall and must prevail Insha Allah.

Hasan
hasan.rashid@mail.com