Islamic Terrorism in India

Most Muslims are not terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslims

Archive for the ‘Jihad’ Category

Mumbai Jihad 26/11: 3rd Anniversary

Posted by jagoindia on November 28, 2011


Political Will & Concrete Steps Must to Prevent 26 / 11 type Jehadi Terror

– Dr Pravin Togadia
New Delhi, November 26, 2011

On the 3 years completion for the gruesome Jehadi Terror attack on Mumbai, VHP International Secretary General Dr Pravin Togadia has put forward some specific demands. While expressing oneness with the victims of Mumbai 26/11, Dr Togadia said, “From over 1000 years there have been such Jehadi attacks on Bharat. Now, when Bharat has a democratically elected govt, the responsibility of this govt does not end with running a dragged criminal case against Jehadi Terrorists & wait for the judiciary to act while many go scot-free due to vote bank politics. Rather than reacting after the Jehadi terror attacks again & again, the govt should approach this serious security threat to the nation in a three pronged way:

1. Although some sporadic arrests are made after each Jehadi terror attack in / on Bharat, the base networks behind the very indoctrination & the ensuing Jehadi attack are not busted. Until this is done, the Jehadi terror attacks will never stop. Therefore, those institutions preaching such thoughts should be banned as well as all modules & networks must be busted. Govt intelligence agencies do have all this information but due to vote bank politics govts do not even touch these networks.
2. The biggest blunder was to repeal POTA. It is cynical to say that the law can not prevent crime. It may not; but at least the perpetrators get severely punished without getting a chance to misuse Bharat’s liberal law process & democracy which they despise as per their indoctrination. Therefore, the law against Jehadi Terror which is stronger than POTA should be brought in immediately.
3. Mere existence of law does not protect nations. If that were so, there would not have been so many attacks on the Army & police in Kashmir . To implement the law against Jehadi Terror, there has to be an independent agency which is not controlled by vote-monger govts. Then & then only the real Jehadi Terrorists will be arrested & punished. Newly created semi political agencies like NIA whose only agenda is to send Hindus to jail never serve nation. There has to be a strong & independent expert agency for this.“

Dr Togadia further added, “If govt is serious about eradicating Jehadi Terror from Bharat, then it should first stop wooing minority for the votes. Rather than giving justice to victims of Jehadi Terror, govt is busy making new laws against the majority Hindus treating them as communal criminals & giving Jehadi Pakistan MFN status. This weak & power-greedy mentality & behaviour will end Bharat’s sovereignty & make Bharat an Islamic state as desired by the Jehadi groups.”

Dr Togadia appealed to all in Bharat to join him in his democratic peaceful movement ‘India Against Terror’ to make Bharat again a prosperous & peaceful nation – free of Jehadi Terror.

Contact: Dr Pravin Togadia:

Posted in Hindus, India, Islamofascism, Jihad, LeT, Pakistan, State, Terrorism | Leave a Comment »

Pakistan: A monster roaming the world

Posted by jagoindia on September 15, 2011

A monster roaming the world

Paul McGeough

The West has spent billions trying to buy Pakistan’s friendship but the jihadists are stronger than ever, writes Paul McGeough.

Search for a firm footing in Pakistan and there is none – all is quicksand … strategically, politically, morally.

Here in south Asia, strategically sandwiched between failing Afghanistan and the China and India powerhouses, is a country in which journalists are abducted in the night by agents of the state and murdered; in which the only advance after a decade in which Washington has tried to buy friendship with cheques for more than $20 billion, is the expansion of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal – which is on the verge of surpassing Britain’s as the fifth biggest in the world.

In Pakistan, a 50-year-old woman is sentenced to death on a dubious blasphemy charge – and politicians who dare to speak in her defence are gunned down; and a woman is gang-raped and paraded naked through her village on the orders of a local council, over bogus claims that her 12-year-old brother has offended a 20-year-old woman from the clan of the men who defiled her.

But that’s village life. In the leafy garrison town of Abbottabad, an hour’s drive north of Islamabad, Osama bin Laden, mastermind of the attacks of September 11, 2001, was able to hide in plain sight for years. The location of his fortified bunker, a stone’s throw from a prestigious military academy, made it harder to give any credence to the generals’ repeated denials that significant elements of Pakistan’s extensive security apparatus sheltered the al-Qaeda chief and continue to give succour to the Taliban and other insurgency and terrorist movements.

In the south-west, in the wilds of provincial Baluchistan, there have been 150 ”kill and dump” operations this year. Most of the victims are Baluch nationalist rebels. Their killers are the Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI) and other elements of Pakistan’s national security forces – driven to brutality by a belief, which could be correct, that Pakistan’s arch foe, India, stirs the local nationalist pot. In turn, the Baluch nationalists are accused of running their own death squads – their victims are Punjabi ”settlers”, government workers brought in from other parts of the country.

Baluchistan is half Pashtun, which also makes it a sanctuary for the Taliban from adjoining Afghanistan, where Washington and the world still struggle, with little success, to impose a semblance of democracy on the bones of a fracturing, failing state. Here then is another of the ironies that puts a serious question mark over the bona fides of the Pakistani security forces: the leadership of the Afghanistan Taliban sequesters in Quetta, the provincial capital of Baluchistan, but the various Pakistani security services are so busy putting the Baluch nationalists through the mincer they don’t have time to take down the Taliban command-and-control centre. Instead, they reportedly socialise with the Taliban and sit in on their strategy meetings.

West from Baluchistan is the sprawling port city of Karachi, where the spiralling death toll in renewed ethnic turf-wars gives raw meaning to what local novelist Kamila Shamsie broaches obliquely, recounting how the city ”winks” at her. “Yes, the city said, I am a breeding ground for monsters, ” she writes, “but don’t think that is the full measure of what I am.”

This drab, chaotic home to 18 million people who account for 65 per cent of Pakistan’s economy is being carved up by bullets that this year have accounted for as many as 1000 ”wrong place, wrong time” deaths as gunmen randomly select their targets – sending messages to whole communities, not the individuals with whose blood they paint the rough pavements. As the suburbs seethe, police do little, because they are cowed by the systematic elimination of those in their ranks who intervened in the last iteration of these ethnic wars. Provincial and federal governments and the security forces only wring their hands.

In Karachi everyone lies. No one denies turf wars are being waged. They simply blame everyone else – all the political parties deny any links to the militias that prosecute their bloody agendas and to the crime, drug and land-development mafias that prosper in their wake. And the city’s once-dominant Urdu-speaking Mohajirs fight to maintain their control of corrupted city politics, amid an influx of Pashtuns fleeing upheavals along the Afghan border.

“Tension rises, we see killings and then scores must be settled,” an adviser to the provincial governor says. “We are at war – the political parties say they are not involved, but the mafias take shelter from the parties as they exploit the situation.”

In Islamabad, enter any of the city’s newsrooms, and see fear in the eyes of journalists who risk death and torture for going about assignments. Consider the words of their Karachi colleague Madiha Sattar – “a growth of intolerance has forged an extreme, murderous antipathy to freedom of expression.”

Most shocking in this campaign of fear and intimidation against one of the pillars of democracy was the disappearance in late May of Syed Saleem Shahzad, an investigative reporter for the respected, Hong Kong-based Asia Times Online. Two days after his abduction, Shahzad’s battered body was found at Mandi Bahauddin, 130 kilometres south-east of the capital. The reporter left detailed accounts of the threats he had received from the ISI; in Washington, senior officials unflinchingly confirming that Shahzad’s death had been ”sanctioned” by the Pakistani government.

Umar Cheema might just as easily have been their victim. Behind a door marked ”Investigation Cell” off a basement corridor in the Islamabad offices of The News, the 34-year-old father of two explains that the shock in his colleague Saleem Shahzad’s murder was a realisation it might just as easily have been him.

As Cheema drove home from a party in the early hours during Ramadan last year, 12 men who identified themselves as police commandos abducted him, he says. Informing him first that he was a suspect in a killing, they pulled a bag over his head and hauled him away.

“They took me to a building where the leader stripped off my clothes. Then I was ordered to lie on the floor and they beat me on the back and shoulders for 20 or 25 minutes with leather straps and wooden canes.

“I was writing about corruption in the government and the lack of accountability in the military and intelligence agencies – they said they were beating me because of my reporting. Then they shaved my head and eyebrows – that’s what is done to thieves in rural areas to humiliate them.

“Shahzad’s death left me speechless,” he says. “I was the second last victim before they took him. So I felt very much that this was a message for me – it was very, very personal.”

In Islamabad, the government of Prime Minister Yousaf Gillani is as overwhelmed as it is complicit in the nation’s failings. The economy is in crisis and the government has ceded control of more than half the country to the military or to extremist militias. “None of the cogs of state mesh to make it do what must be done,” Human Rights Commission of Pakistan’s Kamran Arif said.

Just south of Islamabad is Rawalpindi, a more typical Asian city than the sanitised and empty boulevards of Islamabad. As home and headquarters to the men and institutions that comprise Pakistan’s military and intelligence establishment, this is the centre of absolute power in Pakistan. And it is here that a deep-fried sense of humiliation over the American raid to kill Osama bin Laden, in May this year, is felt most acutely.

“After the bin Laden raid, it’s a question of the survival of the state,” the defence analyst and director of the South Asian Strategic Stability Institute, Maria Sultan, says. “The problem now is that by this very public humiliation, the US has lost its biggest supporter – it’s not the capability of the Pakistani military that is affected, it’s its credibility.”

A close reading of ”Getting Bin Laden”, The New Yorker’s inside account of the May 2 raid, reveals the mission was not just a single US incursion that managed to evade Pakistan’s air defences. On the night, there were effectively three separate American missions, none of which was detected by a military-security complex that demands indulgence by the people of Pakistan on the grounds that it is their only protection from the Indian hordes.

Pakistan’s generals faced a grim choice – they had to admit to deceiving the world in harbouring bin Laden, or to incompetence by not knowing he was lounging in their backyard. So supine were they in opting to plead incompetence there were fears of a mutiny in the middle ranks of the security services.

The US signal to the world of just how much it could not trust its south Asian ally came hard on the heels of serial embarrassments at the hands of the Taliban and other militant groups in Pakistan.

There have been a series of militant attacks on the most secure and sensitive defence establishments. The latest, which some observers concluded could not have been undertaken without inside help, saw a 10-man assault team storm the Mehran naval aviation base in Karachi. It took hundreds of Pakistani navy commandos, marines and paramilitaries to retake the base, but not before two aircraft were destroyed, hostages taken and the base had been occupied for the best part of a day.

But it takes a discerning Pakistani general to differentiate between militants – some are ”strategic assets” of the security apparatus and the generals refuse to go after them.

Dr Ayesha Agha, whose military and political commentaries appear in Pakistan’s Dawn newspaper, explains: “The military depends on these ‘assets’ – they are a cost-effective means to fighting wars that the Pakistani military wants to fight in India and Afghanistan.” Extrajudicial killings by the military now are counted in the hundreds.

When men in uniform were filmed recently murdering a detainee, the reckoning in human rights circles was that far from being a lapse of judgment, the recording had been allowed in the knowledge that its distribution on the internet would serve as a useful warning to the wider community.

A Karachi taxi driver becomes excited as he ferries us from the airport to a downtown hotel – “Pakistan lovely country,” he bellows. “Terrorism? No, no, no.”

But a single graphic in a 200-page study of Pakistan, published in May by the Washington-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies, reveals an impossible security challenge. Last year alone, 2113 terrorist attacks, 369 clashes between the security services and militants, 260 operational attacks by the security forces, 135 US drone attacks, 69 border clashes, 233 bouts of ethno-political violence and 214 inter-tribal clashes resulted in more than 10,000 dead and as many injured.

The death of bin Laden and the reported death of al-Qaeda’s new No. 2 figure, Atiyah Abd al-Rahman, in an American drone attack last week, are still being factored into a running debate among intelligence specialists on the extent to which al-Qaeda offshoots elsewhere in the world, especially the Yemen-based al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula [AQAP], have taken the baton from the Pakistani organisation.

But a July study by the New America Foundation of 32 ”serious” jihadist terror plots against the West from 2004 to 2011, finds 53 per cent had operational or training links to jihadist groups in Pakistan – compared to just 6 per cent being linked to Yemen. And the rising tempo of the drone attacks has failed to dent the rising frequency of Pakistan-linked plots against the West, the study finds.

Implicit or explicit in any discussion on Pakistan’s volatile mix of militant violence and governmental chaos, is the level of anxiety around the world about the security of its nuclear arsenal. Confronted with claims such as that by bin Laden that acquiring a nuclear weapon was a ”religious duty” and the hope expressed by one of his lieutenants that such a weapon one day might be seized in Pakistan, officials in Islamabad invariably boast that all is tightly locked down.

But when we ask a Pakistani diplomat how secure were the weapons in the aftermath of the US mission to kill Osama bin Laden, he replies: “Less so, now that the Americans have revealed to the world that it is possible to sneak into Pakistan undetected, to take something that you really want.”

President Obama’s public appeal that Pakistan not become the world’s first ”nuclear-armed militant state” gives context to disclosures by The New Yorker’s Seymour Hersh of the existence of a US Special Operations rapid-response team which would be parachuted into Pakistan in the event of a nuclear crisis.

Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, a former director of intelligence and counter intelligence at the US Department of Energy, is boldest in setting out the fears of Washington, London and other capitals – some of which were disclosed without diplomatic varnish by Wikileaks last year.

Writing in Arms Control Today, Mowatt-Larssen, who served 20 years at the CIA, bills Pakistan as the most likely setting for terrorists bent on acquiring a nuclear device to co-opt a nuclear insider – of whom there are estimated to be as many as 70,000 in Pakistan.

“There is a lethal proximity between terrorists, extremists, and nuclear weapons insiders,” he writes. “Insiders have facilitated terrorist attacks. Suicide bombings have occurred at air force bases that reportedly serve as nuclear weapons storage sites. It is difficult to ignore such trends.

”Purely in actuarial terms, there is a strong possibility that bad apples in the nuclear establishment are willing to co-operate with outsiders for personal gain or out of sympathy for their cause.”

“Not possible,” says Maria Sultan. “About eight to 10,000 personnel working at the strategic level on security,” she says, ticking off seven or eight interlocking layers of complex security, the first of which she says would trip most intruders before they came within 80 kilometres of a nuclear facility. “The idea that a terrorist can walk in and get hold of a device is just not possible.”

Such is the bind in which Pakistanis find themselves. But if it is true feeble and corrupt civilian administrations make circumstances ripe for a military takeover, it is hardly surprising the generals have no respect for democratic fundamentals.

As revealed in one of the Wikileaks cables, Army chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani was ready to force President Asif Ali Zardari from office – save for the fact the general thought even less of Zardari’s likely civilian replacement. And historically, Washington has opted to connect with Pakistan through the military power of the generals, rather than the people power of the civilian leadership.

Bruce Riedel, a veteran CIA analyst, sets out the connections in Deadly Embrace: Pakistan, America and the Future of the Global Jihad. “…Richard Nixon turned a blind eye to the murder of hundreds of thousands of Bangladeshis to keep his friends in Pakistan’s army in power, a strategy that ultimately failed,” Riedel writes. “Ronald Reagan entertained Zia-ul-Haq even as Zia was giving succour to the Arab jihadists who would become al-Qaeda. George W. Bush allowed Pervez Musharraf to give the Afghan Taliban a sanctuary from which to kill American and NATO soldiers in Afghanistan.”

And in the judgment of Bushra Gohar, an elected MP from Pakistan’s troubled Swat Valley, Washington still prefers to deal with the military rather than the country’s civilian leadership. “That’s not a role that the military has under the constitution,” she says during a break in the business of the National Assembly in Islamabad. “There has been a democratic transition in this country and we expect the international community to support it.”

Power vacuums become ripe for exploitation, as was revealed with frightening clarity earlier this year when two of three elected figures who had dared to speak out against Pakistan’s draconian blasphemy laws were assassinated. In January, Punjab provincial governor Salman Taseer was gunned down by one of his state-provided security men; in March, the Minorities Minister and the only Christian in Gillani’s cabinet, Shahbaz Bhatti, died in a hail of gunfire as his car left his mother’s home in Islamabad.

Taseer’s killer confessed and became a national hero. His home is a shrine, he is garlanded with rose petals and, in the oddest twist of all, the young lawyers’ movement that effectively bundled Pervez Musharraf, the last dictator, from power in 2008, has taken the side of this cold-blooded murderer – not the principle for which his victim died.

A visitor leaves Pakistan wondering if anyone here speaks the truth. The dictators habitually resort to amping up religious parties – either to drown out secular ones that might be interested in the ideals of selfless democracy, or to further marginalise the country’s Shiia Muslim minority.

“And people like Musharraf have two faces,” Kamran Arif of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan said. “He would say all the right things for the West and do just what he wanted to do at home.”

Some foreign analysts fall back on the seeming failure of Pakistan’s religious parties at the ballot box as a hopeful sign. But a sense of rising radicalisation, particularly in the military and the middle classes, suggests an asymmetric contest for control of a highly unstable society – the non-religious parties fight in the parliament, but the religious parties are street brawlers.

Sherry Rehman, the only elected figure in the country to defend the convicted blasphemer Aasia Bibi, makes the same point in explaining how that debate was lost. “The discourse shifted from the parliament to the street,” she says.

“We have to keep the agenda in the parliament, and not with the gun-toting thugs who make inflammatory speeches outside.”

Like the financial institutions in the 2008 global financial crisis, Pakistan is deemed by Washington to be ”too big to fail”. Between them, however, Washington and Islamabad have been unable in the past decade to make this relationship work – credibly or creditably.

Predictions of imminent collapse in Islamabad are exaggerated, but perhaps not overly so. “The government does not have the capacity to tackle any of the issues,” says the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan’s Arif. “Things will just keep getting bad … and I don’t discount the fact that we can fall into chaos.”

Like many other analysts, Bruce Riedel laboriously sets out the policy options by which Washington and Islamabad might work together to defeat the global jihadist movement – before he concludes that none is easy or guaranteed.

An adviser to several US administrations and now with the Brookings Institution, Riedel sees Pakistan under siege from a syndicate of radical terrorist groups unified by the notion that nuclear-armed Pakistan could be the extremist jihadist state they have never had.

“They want to hijack Pakistan and its weapons,” he says. Alluding to Islamabad’s role in creating a monster, as often as not with Washington’s sponsorship, he writes: “An extremely powerful jihadist Frankenstein is now roaming the world, with equally powerful protectors in Pakistani society, right up to the very top.

“Who cannot fear that the ‘long beards’ will prevail?”

Posted in Islamofascism, Jihad, Pakistan, Terrorism, West | Comments Off on Pakistan: A monster roaming the world

3 – 4 incidents don’t make Hindu terror phenomenon

Posted by jagoindia on July 30, 2011

3 – 4 incidents don’t make saffron terror phenomenon: RSS

September 01, 2010

Bhopal: Mere occurrence of three-four incidents cannot be termed as a phenomenon which is a continuous process, senior RSS leader Ram Madhav today said reacting to Union Home Minister P Chidambaram’s “saffron terrorism” remarks.

“We believe there is nothing like Hindu terrorism or saffron terrorism in the country,” Madhav said addressing a seminar on “Politics of Terrorism and Media”.

Madhav said attempts were being made to create a bogey of saffron terrorism by certain parties.

He alleged use of the term “saffron terrorism” was as an attempt to divert attention from “jihadi terrorism”.

“The term saffron terrorism was deliberately coined with a vested political interest, so that no one can question the government on the issue of jihadi terrorism,” Madhav told reporters after a seminar here.

“The ongoing probe in the three to four (bomb blast) cases (linked to radical Hindu outfits) should reveal the mastermind behind these incidents. Then only anything can be said about them,” the former RSS spokesperson said.

To a question, Madhav said there was nothing like saffron/Hindu terrorism in the country. But it cannot be said that terrorism has no colour as it followed certain ideology. Madhav said when the philosophy of Hinduism is based on the welfare of the people, it cannot be linked to terrorism or fundamentalist elements.

The seminar was also addressed by ‘Saamna’ newspaper’s Executive Editor Prem Shukla and senior Congress leader Mahesh Joshi.

Shukla slammed Chidambaram for the remarks and said “Islamic terrorism” was coined after the 9/11 terror attacks in the US.


Posted in Hindu terror, India, Islam, Islamofascism, Jihad, Terrorism | Leave a Comment »

Islamic terrorist Osama Bin Laden saw India As Enemy, Wanted To Join Jihad In Kashmir

Posted by jagoindia on May 14, 2011

Osama saw India as enemy, wanted to join jihad in Kashmir

May 3, 2011,

NEW DELHI: While India was spared of any attack directly masterminded, or even aided by Osama himself, it did find mention in his messages suggesting that the terror ideologue looked upon India as an enemy and a potential target. The alliance between al-Qaida and Lashkar-e-Taiba, India’s main terror threat, suggests that Osama had evolved into more than being just an inspirational figure for several terror groups targeting India.

The links between anti-India terror groups and Osama’s jihadis have been known at least since 1998 when members of Harkat-ul-Ansar, a terrorist group focused on Kashmir, training alongside al-Qaida members in Afghanistan were killed in a US missile attack. In fact, the very first reference to India by Osama came in May 1998 when he said in a press conference at Khost in Afghanistan that he would love to join the jihad in Kashmir if the Pakistani authorities allowed him. Osama’s answer came in response to a question from a Pakistani journalist. In the same conference, he announced the formation of International Islamic Front for Jihad Against the US and Israel.

This was followed by a long pause on India, even though his No.2 Ayman Al Zawahiri regularly spewed venom not just against India but also Hindus. In an April 2006 audio message, the emir of al-Qaida broke his silence to speak of a “Crusader-Zionist-Hindu conspiracy” against Muslims and also referred to Kashmir.

“Meanwhile, a UN resolution passed more than half a century ago gave Muslim Kashmir the liberty of choosing independence from India. George Bush, the leader of the Crusaders’ campaign, announced a few days ago that he will order his converted agent Musharraf to shut down the Kashmir mujahideen camps, thus affirming that it is a Zionist-Hindu war against Muslims,” he said in the message which sought to highlight conspiracies against Muslims all over the world. According to security expert B Raman, the message lacked focus.

It was never established why he made the remark in the context of East Timor’s independence from Indonesia.

Much before 9/11, in November 1998, the Army claimed to have seized from militants, after an encounter in the Pir Panjal ranges, some cards with messages from Osama describing India as enemy No.1.

It is a safe surmise that Osama’s dependence on Pakistan for his survival may have forced him to buy more heavily into Islamabad’s designs against India.

A Wikileaks cable in December last year revealed that Osama was willing to divert $20 million to support groups active in Kashmir and also that he asserted that the jihad would not suffer from lack of funds. In a meeting with US officials, joint secretary (cabinet secretariat) Sharad Kumar stated that Indian intelligence had transcripts of pre-9/11 meetings between Osama and Taliban chief Mullah Omar during which terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir was discussed.

That India was an al-Qaida target became obvious in 2007 after 9/11 accused Khalid Sheikh Mohammed revealed in his testimony at Guantanamo Bay that he was involved in a conspiracy to bomb the Israeli embassy in Delhi before 2003. In a tape released in 2003, Ayman Al Zawahiri warned Pakistan army officers that President Musharraf would ”hand you over to the Hindus and flee to enjoy his secret bank accounts” if India attacked their country. He urged them to overthrow Musharraf and also condemned then Israeli PM Ariel Sharon’s visit to India.

In 2009, there were two warnings to India from al-Qaida. The first was a telephonic threat in February 2009, the authenticity of which could not be established, warning India not to attack Pakistan and another one seven months later in which it warned Germany of attacks like those in Madrid and Mumbai.

From time to time, there have been reports about the presence of al-Qaida from J&K to Bihar but this has never been established. Security experts like Raman have warned though that LeT, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Harkat-ul-Mujahideen and HuJI could “turn out to be the Trojan horse of al-Qaida”. India’s former NSA M K Narayanan even said that LeT was the “most visible manifestation” of al-Qaida in India.

Posted in Al-Qaeda, India, Islamofascism, Jihad, Kashmir, Osama Bin Laden, Terrorism | Leave a Comment »

Inside Kashmir’s New Islamic Terrorist Movement

Posted by jagoindia on September 5, 2010

SRINAGAR, August 19, 2010
Inside Kashmir’s New Islamist movement
Praveen Swami

Leaders of the ongoing street mobilisation hope to lay the foundation for a new jihadist movement

Irshad Zargar had an explanation for the neat, bound file in his home with the names, addresses and photographs of 740 Srinagar residents: they were aspirants, he told investigators after his arrest in February, for start-up bank loans for local artisans.

But as their investigation moved forward, police say, it became clear that the dossier was in fact an organisational chart of one of the multiple Islamist networks that had spearheaded the violence in Kashmir towns this summer.

Police say they also found maps of the best place to stage clashes with police and evidence of funds being transferred from overseas. The funds had paid for the Maruti jeep Zargar used to visit cadre — fitted, ironically, with a red police beacon.

There’s little doubt that the large-scale street violence in Kashmir — fuelled by urban deprivation, human rights abuses and, above all, the often-indiscriminate use of lethal force against protesters — have a reach and legitimacy that no organisation can account for. But the Zargar case shows that hard work went into building the networks that gave the protests direction and focus.

Fugitive Islamist leader Masrat Alam Bhat, his colleague Asiya Andrabi and their jailed mentor Ashiq Husain Faktoo are at the heart of the New Islamist movement that runs these networks.

Bhat has issued the strike calendars that have brought Kashmir to a standstill — and controlled the protest squads that enforce them.

Born in old-city Srinagar’s Zaindar Mohalla in July 1971, Bhat studied in Srinagar’s élite Cecil Earle Tyndale-Biscoe School before joining the Sri Pratap College. Like so many of his generation, he was drawn to the jihadist movement that began in 1989.

He was first arrested by the Border Security Force in October 1990 on charges of serving as a lieutenant to the then-prominent jihadist, Mushtaq Ahmad Bhat. He won a protracted legal battle in 1997 and began working at a cloth store owned by his grandfather, graduating the next year.

From 1999, though, Bhat became increasingly active in the All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) — an association that cost him multiple stints in prison. He represented the Muslim League.

Founded in 1989 as a political front for former jihadists, the League’s objectives, “besides fighting Indian aggression, were propagating Islamic teachings to fight out socialism and secularism, removing taghut [false leaders; traitors] rule and uprooting western ideology.”

Bhat found space under hardline Islamist leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani’s wing after the Hurriyat Conference split in 2003. He found an ally there in Asiya Andrabi, head of the Dukhtaran-e-Millat (daughters of the nation).

The youngest child of prominent Srinagar doctor Sayeed Shahabuddin Andrabi, 1962-born Ms. Andrabi had completed a degree in biochemistry, and hoped to study further in Dalhousie.

Forbidden from leaving home, she turned to religion. From 1982, she set up a network of religious schools and campaigned against obscenity in popular television programming.

The Dukhtaran-e-Millat supported jihadists through Kashmir’s two-decade long insurgency. From 2006, Ms. Andrabi acquired increasing visibility, campaigning against an anti-vice platform.

Both leaders played a key role in organising protests against the grant of land-use rights to the Amarnath shrine board in 2008 — a communally-charged campaign that brought tens of thousands of people on to the streets.

The ideological firmament of the New Islamists, though, is Ms. Andrabi’s incarcerated husband, Ashiq Husain Faktoo.

Now serving a life sentence for the assassination of human rights campaigner H.N. Wanchoo, Faktoo acquired a doctorate in Islamic studies while in prison.

Like Bhat and Ms. Andrabi, he founds his religious beliefs on the teachings of the neo-fundamentalist Jamiat Ahl-e-Hadith.

Earlier this year, the New Islamists attempted to depose the Ahl-e-Hadith leader Shaukat Shah in a tightly-fought election; Shah backs Mirwaiz Farooq’s pro-dialogue secessionist faction.

Long a political activist, Faktoo was led into the Hizb-ul-Mujahideen by Mohammad Abdullah Bangroo who, many years later, presided over the assassination of influential Srinagar cleric Mirwaiz Mohammad Farooq — father of the present APHC chairperson, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq.

In 1990, Faktoo and Hilal Mir (better known by code-name Nasir-ul-Islam) broke from the Hizb to form the Jamiat-ul-Mujahideen, upset with its linkages to the Jamaat-e-Islami.

Later that year, Faktoo married Ms. Andrabi — only to be imprisoned two years later. From jail, the police allege, Faktoo mentored a new generation of jihadists.

The police say he inspires two organisations — al-Nasireen and Farzandan-e-Millat — responsible for the killing of officers in August and September last.

The name al-Nasireen, a reference to the companions of Prophet Mohammad, is thought to draw on the nom de guerre of Faktoo’s Jamiat-ul-Mujahideen co-founder, Farzandan-e-Millat (sons of the nation).

New foundation
In essence, the troika wishes to build a new political foundation for the jihadist movement in Jammu and Kashmir.

“You will be tired,” Bhat said in a recent release addressed to Indian forces in Jammu and Kashmir, “of killing us; some day you might be horrified at what you have done to humanity. We will never tire of struggling for our history, for our future, our freedom. We will not forgive.”

Posted in Indian Muslims, Islamofascism, Jihad, Kashmir, Terrorism | 3 Comments »

Karachi Project: ISI, LeT getting Indian Muslim terrorists together in Karachi for attack

Posted by jagoindia on February 23, 2010

‘ISI, LeT getting Indian jihadis together in Karachi for attack’

Feb 01, 2010

Headley is accused of recceing Mumbai and other Indian cities for the Lashkar-e-Toiba as part of the preparations for 26/11.

The ISI has put together a team of Indian jihadis in Karachi, and is waiting to launch them into the country on a terrorist project, alleged terror suspects David Coleman Headley and Mohammad Amjad Khwaja have told their interrogators.

Headley was arrested by the FBI in Chicago in October last year, and is accused of recceing Mumbai and other Indian cities for the Lashkar-e-Toiba as part of the preparations for 26/11. Khwaja, belonging to the Harkat-ul Jihad-i Islami, was arrested on January 18, and is being held in Hyderabad.

Headley has described the “Karachi project” to FBI interrogators, details of which have been shared with New Delhi, sources said. He is believed to have said that both the ISI and the Lashkar have been training Indian nationals in terrorist activities, and using them for anti-India “projects” from time to time.

The National Investigation Agency (NIA) has also been able to unearth significant details about Headley’s movements in Pakistan through his e-mail correspondence. Contents of his Gmail account were shared with New Delhi following an official request to Google.

Details of Headley’s movements in and out of India, reported in The Indian Express last Thursday, show that he flew into Mumbai from Karachi and returned to the same city twice over the last three years — once in late 2006, and then again in April 2008.

Evidence of the ISI-Lashkar Karachi project has also come independently from HuJI man Khwaja, who was picked up by Chennai Police on his return from Saudi Arabia on a Pakistani passport. Top sources said Khwaja has told his interrogators that a large number of highly-indoctrinated jihadi Indian nationals have been housed in the Pakistani port city.

Khwaja is understood to have revealed that he met alleged Indian Mujahideen terrorists Amir Raza Khan and Riyaz Bhatkal in Karachi, both of whom are staying in the city’s Defence enclave, probably under the ISI’s protection.

Khwaja, who visited Mecca and Jeddah in Saudi Arabia before he was arrested, is believed to have confessed to planning the October 2005 attack on the STF office in Hyderabad, but has been silent on his suspected role in the Mecca Masjid and Gokul Chat blasts in 2007.

Khwaja is learnt to have provided details of HuJI operations in Bangladesh, and the outfit’s coordination with Lashkar leaders based in Manshera and Muridke in Pakistan. The Hyderabad Police are expected to approach the court for permission to carry out a narco test on him shortly.

Meanwhile, a team of officers from Bangalore are also expected to interrogate Khwaja in connection with his revelations on Riaz Bhatkal, who, along with his brother Iqbal, are believed to have joined hands with hardline elements from the Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) to carry out the bombings attributed to the Indian Mujahideen between 2006 and 2008. Much of the planning and preparation for these attacks took place at the port town of Bhatkal near Mangalore.

Khwaja is of interest to the Karnataka Police also on account of his alleged interaction with Amir Raza Khan, the gangster-turned-jihadi who is believed to have played a crucial supporting role in Indian Mujahideen operations.

(With Johnson TA in Bangalore)

Posted in HUJI, India, Indian Muslims, ISI, Islamofascism, Jihad, LeT, Pakistan, Terrorism | Leave a Comment »

The Seeds Of Partition Were Sown 80 Years Before 1947

Posted by jagoindia on September 22, 2009

At Meerut, on March 16, 1888, Sir Syed referred to Hindus and Muslims as two nations, in fact as two warring nations who could not lead a common political life if ever the British left India.

So who was really responsible for Partition?
September 17, 2009

Sanjeev Nayyar

Jaswant Singh’s book has raised a fresh controversy on who was responsible for the Partition of India. Some think it was Mohammed Ali Jinnah; others say Jawharlal Nehru/Sardar Patel. The truth is that the seeds for Partition were sown at least 80 years before Partition actually happened.

Dr B R Ambedkar wrote in 1941, ‘The curious may examine the history of the 1857 mutiny, if he does, he will find that in part at any rate it was actually a jihad proclaimed by the Muslims against the British that owing to the occupation of India by the British the country had become Dar-ul-Harb’ (See Thoughts on Pakistan). This is substantiated by Professor Sheshrao More in The 1857 Jihad (Manas Publications). It is because Muslims took an active part in the 1857 mutiny that the British were anti-Muslim in the early post-mutiny period.

With the advent of British rule Muslim insecurity leapfrogged.

The condition of Muslims was best stated by a liberal, R M Sayani, in his presidential address at the 12th session of the Congress in 1896: ‘Before the advent of the British in India, the Muslims were the rulers of the country. The rulers and their chiefs were Muslims, so were the great landlords and officials. The court language was their own (Persian was the official language of India till 1842)… The Hindus were in awe of them. By a stroke of misfortune, the Muslims had to abdicate their position and descend to the level of their Hindu fellow-countrymen. The Muslims resented the treatment.’

Sayani argued that when the British introduced English education in the country, the Hindus embraced it, but Muslims resented competing with the Hindus, whom they once regarded as their inferiors. Hence Muslims were gradually ousted from their lands and offices, while Hindus rose under the Raj [History and Culture of Indian People, Bhartiya Vidya Bhawan, Vol. X: 295]

Sir Syed Ahmad Khan came at a critical juncture in the 1870s, and worked for a political rapprochement with the British. They were swayed in 1857, but a little tact and generous forgiveness could change Muslims into loyal supporters. Sir Syed conceived the idea of a Muslim college like Oxford and Cambridge — the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College at Aligarh. At Meerut, on March 16, 1888, Sir Syed referred to Hindus and Muslims as two nations, in fact as two warring nations who could not lead a common political life if ever the British left India.

For the British, Sir Syed’s overtures came at a very opportune moment. After two generations of English education, Hindus showed signs of political development. The British seized the opportunity offered by Sir Syed of enlisting the support of the politically undeveloped Muslims as a counterpoise to the progressive Hindu community.

Differences were accentuated in connection with the legislation for local self-government on an elective basis, and for the first time a demand was made for separate representation for Muslims. Said Muhammad Yusuf on May 3, 1883, “But it would be an advantage and more fit recognition of the claims of the Muslim population if provision could be made in the bill for the election of Muslims by reserving a certain number of membership for that community.”

The divide was visible in the number and frequency of Hindu-Muslim riots thereafter.

The British role in India’s division is best summed up by Sardar Patel. He said on August 9, 1945, “The British talk of Hindu-Muslim quarrels, but who has thrust the burden on their shoulders? Give me just a week’s rule over Britain; I will create such disagreements that England, Wales and Scotland will fight one another for ever” (Patel — A Life by Rajmohan Gandhi).

So when was Pakistan conceived? Dr Ambedkar wrote in 1941, “There is evidence that some of them knew this to be the ultimate destiny of the Muslims as early as 1923. In support of this reference may be made to the evidence of Khan Saheb Sardar M Gulkhan (who was president, Islamic Anjuman, Dera Ismail Khan) who appeared as witness before the NWF Committee to report upon the administrative relationship between the settled area of NWFP and the tribal area and upon the amalgamation of the settled districts with Punjab [ Images ].

“Many believe the Khilafat Movement (1919), a protest by Indian Muslims against Turkey’s abolition of the Caliph, religious leader of the Arab world, to be the first step towards India’s Partition. Gandhi spearheaded this movement but failed to realise that the Pan-Islamic idea cut at the very root of Indian nationality. What did the movement achieve?

“First, Muslim fanaticism secured a position of prestige in Indian politics; thereafter their religious loyalty took precedence over national loyalty. Two, the Muslim population hitherto divided among various groups and political pulls now became a solid force. Three, a new fanatic leadership riding on the crest of the Khilafat wave came to wield the reigns of the Muslim leadership.”

Could the Hindus have avoided Partition? Not if you believe the above-quoted words of Dr Ambedkar.

The British had ensured that the armed forces consisted primarily of Muslim soldiers from the area that is modern day Pakistan. They sought to justify this predominance by saying that men of the north-west belonged to the martial classes.

Some studies show that the predominance of the men of the north-west took place as early as the mutiny of 1857, some 20 years before the theory of martial and non-martial classes were projected in a distinct form in 1879. Their predominance was due to the fact that they had helped the British suppress the mutiny in which the Bengal army was completely involved. The British changed the composition of the Indian army [ Images ] between 1914 and 1930.

After 1930 there is no information available on the communal composition of the Indian Army. Some believed that Muslims constituted 60-70 percent. Obviously it was high enough to cause alarm to the Hindus. Veer Savarkar was probably one of the few leaders who kept exhorting Hindus to join the Indian Army in large numbers.

My conclusion, hence, is that:

It is a myth that Nehru, Jinnah or Patel were responsible for Partition. They were merely implementing a partition plan scripted in the 19th century.

Hindus were apprehensive that Muslims wanted to rule India again. Muslims feared that under the principal of one man one vote, it would be a government for and by the Hindus.

Separate electorates for Muslims, reservations, caste and religion-based divisions are some of the tactics used by the British to divide India

All those who wish to know the underlying thoughts behind Partition should read Dr B R Ambedkar’s book Thoughts on Pakistan back to back.

Sanjeev Nayyar is the founder of

Posted in Britain, India, Indian Muslims, Islam, Islamofascism, Jihad, Pakistan | 4 Comments »

India a terribly soft state: US experts

Posted by jagoindia on September 6, 2009

India a terribly soft state: US experts
TNN 30 January 2009

NEW DELHI: India will be vulnerable to more terrorist attacks along the lines of Mumbai, terrorism analyst Brian Jenkins from RAND and Ashley Tellis  have told the US Senate’s committee on homeland security.

“India will continue to face a serious jihadi terrorist threat from Pakistan-based terrorist groups. However, India lacks military options that have strategic-level effects without a significant risk of a military response by Pakistan. Neither Indian nor US policy is likely to be able to reduce that threat significantly in the short to medium term,” they said.

Tellis said, “LeT represents a threat to regional and global security second only to al-Qaida. Although LeT is linked in popular perceptions mainly to the terrorism in Jammu & Kashmir, the operations and ideology of this group transcend the violence directed at India.” He cautioned that US should work with India to deal with terrorism from Pakistan, otherwise India would be tempted to take steps that could endanger regional security.

“To the chagrin of its citizens, India has also turned out to be a terribly soft state neither able to prevent many of the terrorist acts that have confronted it over the years nor capable of retaliating effectively against either its terrorist adversaries or their state sponsors in Pakistan,” the two experts said. Jenkins added that the poor quality of India’s response to the terror attacks, intelligence failure and inadequate counter-terrorist training and equipment added to India’s misery.

Posted in India, Islamofascism, Jihad, LeT, Pakistan, Terrorism, United States of America | 3 Comments »

11,500 Pakistani terrorists had died in the jihad against India: Study

Posted by jagoindia on September 4, 2009

NDA govt’s hurry led to Kandahar fiasco: Former IB boss
S Balakrishnan, TNN 1 September 2009

MUMBAI: Back in December 1999, the NDA government unnecessarily asked the team negotiating with the Taliban during the Kandahar hijack to hurry up. Had it displayed some patience, the consequence could have been different.

This was stated by former director of the Intelligence Bureau (IB) Ajit Doval, who was a part of the Indian negotiating team at Kandahar.

Doval told reporters at the sidelines of a seminar on terrorism organised by the SIES College and the US consulate on Monday, that the negotiating team was trying to buy time from the Taliban which had custody of a planeload of passengers. But the NDA government insisted on early resolution. He was also critical of the media for hyping up protests by the families of the kidnapped passengers in Delhi, but the NDA should not have succumbed to the pressure tactics. “If a surgery is being performed then doctors should not be influenced by the hysterics of the patients’ relatives outside the operation theatre,” he observed.

In his keynote address, Doval he has spearheaded several counter-intellience operations in J&K, Punjab and the north-east said there was lack of political will to counter terrorism. He said India had the capacity to deal with terrorists, but the political leadership did not muster up the necessary will to take on anti-national elements.

He quoted a study by Belgium-based institute which revealed that 11,500 Pakistani infiltrators had died in the “jihad” against India. Over 95,000 weapons and 7,000 quintals of RDX were seized from them. “If this not war, what is? This is Pakistan’s fourth generation war against India over the past several years,” he said, adding that unless the source of terrorism located in Pakistan was busted, the problem would remain. The ISI was not getting any recruits anymore from Kashmir, but it was getting other people to do its job.

Doval said in the past, 368 terrorist movements worldwide had failed. And 90% of these were because their leaders had been neutralised. This aspect needs to be kept in mind when we talk of dealing with terrorism in India. “If you do not surprise the terrorists, then they will surprise you,” he said.

Posted in India, Islamofascism, Jihad, Kashmir, Pakistan, Taliban, Terrorism | Leave a Comment »

What’s the point in talking to Pakistan?

Posted by jagoindia on July 26, 2009

What’s the point in talking to Pakistan?

Tavleen Singh, The Indian Express
July 19, 2009

India will not talk to Pakistan as long as its government continues to
nurture and shield those who attack India. Why is it so hard for us to
say this? Why is it so hard for us to tell the visiting American
Secretary of State that it is not possible to speak to people who talk
about fighting against Islamist terrorism but openly support an Islamist
reptile like Hafiz Mohammed Sayeed. Pakistan’s war against its jihadis
is mercenary and fraudulent. It is being fought to get that $1.5 billion
that the American government has promised to give it and for no other

Nothing makes this clearer than the release of the repulsive Sayeed the
day before our Prime Minister was due to meet the Prime Minister of
Pakistan in Egypt last week. It should have been at this point that Dr
Manmohan Singh announced his inability to have even two minutes of
conversation with Mr Yousaf Raza Geelani but he chose not to. He sat
meekly through a long meeting with the Pakistani Prime Minister and then
acquiesced to a joint statement that implied that India was supporting
terrorism in Balochistan.

Ever since the attack on Mumbai I have been hearing from Pakistani
friends a half-hearted justification for Mumbai on the grounds that ‘you
also are doing things in Balochistan’. Whenever I have heard this, I
have pointed out that if India had the ability to get up to some serious
subversive activity in Pakistan, we would be decimating Islamists, not
promoting their activities. Any fool should be able to see that it is in
India’s interests for the Pakistani state (such as it is) to remain in
control of its nuclear weapons and not let them slip into the hands of
bearded fanatics bred on a hatred of ‘Hindu India’.

We would help the Pakistan government fight the Islamists if we could be
sure that the fight was sincere. It cannot be if the Pakistani
government finds it so hard to keep the founder of the Lashkar-e-Toiba
in jail. The Lashkar was created with the sole purpose of promoting
jihadi terrorism. That makes it a terrorist organisation and it makes
its founder a terrorist. What more proof is needed to arrest Sayeed?

This is what I would like to have heard our Prime Minister say after the
meeting in Sharm-ul-Sheikh. Instead he came up with that puzzling
distinction between talking and dialogue. There will be talks between
India and Pakistan but no dialogue. So will we be talking to the walls?

Our problem with Pakistan is no longer Kashmir. That movement for
‘azaadi’ was subsumed long years ago by the worldwide jihad and nothing
proved this more definitely than the attack on Mumbai. This is why that
attack remains so important. There have been other terrorist attacks on
Indian soil but what happened in Mumbai was not just another Islamist
terrorist attack, it was an act of war. There is evidence that the men
who were guiding Kasab and his pals were based in Pakistan and there is
evidence that some of them were serving officers in the Pakistani Army.
Nobody who has heard the chilling conversations between the terrorists
and their Pakistani masters can forget the cold-blooded evil of every
instruction. Now stand them up and shoot them in the back of their
heads. Kill as many people as you can.

The men who gave these instructions are still alive and free in Pakistan
and there is no indication that the Pakistani government is doing
anything to bring them to justice.

If we go ahead with ‘talks’, then this is the only thing we need to talk
to Pakistan about. Where are these men? Who are they? Is it not true
that the attack was planned and executed by the Lashkar-e-Toiba? Is this
ghastly organisation being protected only because it is a division of
the Pakistani Army?

Unless we get some answers, there is not the faintest possibility of the
peace process moving forwards. We cannot talk about Kashmir because
there is no point in talking about it when the attack on Mumbai makes it
so abundantly obvious that the objective of the jihad is not to win
Kashmir but to destroy India. While Pakistan has remained stuck in an
Islamic time warp, India has moved on and embraced modernity and the
changing realities of a rapidly changing world. We have our problems but
they are 21st century problems not problems mired in 7th century Arabia.
It is this changed India that Pakistan cannot deal with and this is why
the jihad, this is why the attack on Mumbai and this is why there is no
point in talking to Pakistan until it provides us with some evidence
that it too wants to change.

Posted in Balochistan, India, Islamofascism, Jihad, LeT, Pakistan, Terrorism | 4 Comments »