Without Egypt, Israel will be left with no friends in Mideast - By Aluf Benn - HAARETZ.COM

WHAT IS GOOD FOR ISRAEL IS NOT GOOD FOR THE ARAB AND MUSLIM WORLD

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/without-egypt-israel-will-be-left-with-no-friends-in-mideast-1.339926

Without Egypt, Israel will be left with no friends in Mideast

Without Egypt's Mubarak and with relations with Turkey in shambles, Israel will be forced to court new potential allies.

By Aluf Benn
The fading power of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's government leaves Israel in a state of strategic distress. Without Mubarak, Israel is left with almost no friends in the Middle East; last year, Israel saw its alliance with Turkey collapse.
From now on, it will be hard for Israel to trust an Egyptian government torn apart by internal strife. Israel's increasing isolation in the region, coupled with a weakening United States, will force the government to court new potential allies.


Israel's foreign policy has depended on regional alliances which have provided the country with strategic depth since the 1950s. The country's first partner was France, which at the time ruled over northern Africa and provided Israel with advanced weaponry and nuclear capabilities.

After Israel's war against Egypt in 1956, David Ben-Gurion attempted to establish alliances with non-Arab countries in the region, including Iran, Turkey and Ethiopia. The Shah of Iran became a significant ally of Israel, supplying the country with oil and money from weapons purchases. The countries' militaries and intelligence agencies worked on joint operations against Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser's rule, which was seen as the main threat against Israel and pro-Western Arab governments.

Israel's next alliances were forged with Jordan's King Hussein and Morocco's King Hassan. These ties were operated in secret, as well as ties with leaders in Lebanon's Christian community. The late 1970s saw the fall of the Shah of Iran, with an anti-Israel Islamic republic created in his stead.
Around the same time, Egypt and Israel broke their cycle of conflict by signing a peace agreement. Egypt positioned itself on the side of Saudi Arabia, as head of the pro-American camp.

Mubarak inherited the peace agreement after President Anwar Sadat's assassination. Mubarak was cold in his public relations with Israel, refusing to visit the country except for Yitzhak Rabin's funeral, which decelerated normalization between the countries.

Relations between the Israel Defense Forces and the Egyptian army were conducted on a low level, with no joint exercises. Egyptian public opinion was openly hostile towards Israel and anti-Semitic terminology was common. Civil relations between the countries were carried out by a handful of government workers and businessmen.

Despite all of this, the "cold peace" with Egypt was the most important strategic alliance Israel had in the Middle East. The security provided by the alliance gave Israel the chance to concentrate its forces on the northern front and around the settlements. Starting in 1985, peace with Egypt allowed for Israel to cut its defense budget, which greatly benefited the economy.

Mubarak became president while Israel was governed by Menachim Begin, and has worked with eight different Israeli leaders since then. He had close relations with Yitzhak Rabin and Benjamin Netanyahu. In the last two years, despite a stagnation in peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians and worsening relations between Netanyahu and the Arab world, Mubarak has hosted the prime minister both in Cairo and in Sharm el-Sheikh.

The friendship between Mubarak and Netanyahu is based on a mutual fear over Iran's strengthening and the rising power of Islamists, as well as over the weakening and distancing of the U.S. government with Barack Obama at its head.

Now, with Mubarak struggling over the survival of his government, Israel is left with two strategic allies in the region: Jordan and the Palestinian Authority. These two allies promise to strengthen Israel's Eastern battlefront and are also working to stop terror attacks and slow down Hamas.
But Israel's relationship with these two allies is complicated. Joint security exercises are modest and the relationship between the leaders is poor. Jordan's King Abdullah refuses to meet Netanyahu, and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is waging a diplomatic struggle against Israel's right-wing government. It's hard to tell how Jordan and the PA could fill the role that Egypt has played for Israel.

In this situation, Israel will be forced to seek out new allies. The natural candidates include Syria, which is striving to exploit Egypt's weakness to claim a place among the key nations in the region.
The images from Cairo and Tunisia surely send chills down the backs of Syrian President Bashar Assad and his cronies, despite the achievement they achieved with the new Hezbollah-backed Lebanon government. As long as the Arab world is flooded with waves of angry anti-government protests, Assad and Netanyahu will be left to safeguard the old order of the Middle East.

Why Akkalkuwa, its students rooting for ‘Bade Hazrat’ - By Ayesha Khan - The Indian Ex press, Mumbai

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/why-akkalkuwa-its-students-rooting-for-bade-hazrat/744026/0

Mon, 31 Jan 2011

Why Akkalkuwa, its students rooting for ‘Bade Hazrat’

By Ayesha Khan


Tags : nation, india, seminary, roads

Posted: Mon Jan 31 2011, 05:43 hrs

Akkalkuwa (Nandurbar, Maharashtra):
All Roads lead to this non-descript Gujarat-Maharashtra border town. Everybody wants to meet him — the devout from the interiors of Maharashtra to some from South Africa, journalists seeking to know his views on issues ranging from the Ishrat Jehan encounter to jehad, to even the Gujarat president of the RSS-backed Rashtravadi Muslim Morcha.


In the dust-up over his election and demands for his resignation as the Deoband Darul Uloom’s Vice-Chancellor, Maulana Mohammed Vastanwi has become a much sought after man.
Few spare a glance for the Jamia Islamia Ishataul Uloom in Akkalkuwa, started originally as a seminary, that mentors an unusual educational experiment. Melding Islamic teachings with mainstream education, it takes care of the needs of 1.7 lakh students across India and even bordering Nepal. Vastanwi, or Bade Hazrat, as they call him, is central to this initiative.

Many quietly point out that in the scale of operations, it is the Akkalkuwa seminary which is larger, while Deoband’s is important for historical and religious reasons. “There are 3,000-odd students at Deoband, but here we manage 1.7 lakh students. Deoband’s importance lies in its historical influence,” says one of Vastanwi’s confidantes.

Some say that a North Indian clique, which has traditionally held sway over ulema politics in India, has now been challenged by a rank outsider — Vastanwi.

“Vastanwi has two qualities — first, his relations across India and abroad with all important seminaries and ability to collect funds; second , he is open minded, emphasising on both kinds of education, religious and mainstream,” says Maulana Habibur Rehman Matadar, who taught with Vastanwi at the Kantharia seminary.

Unlike his peers at Deoband Darul Uloom, Vastanwi does not claim any historical or academic lineage. Most of his family members in his native village of Vastan, 125 km from Akkalkuwa, are farmers. The lone Muslim family in the village, he took on the village name after he adopted Islamic education as a career.

“Our father wanted one of his sons to become aalim (theological equivalent to a post-graduate). Hazrat fulfilled that desire. He studied at Tadkeshwar Darul Uloom after his Standard 7. And now he has made it a must for every madrasa to have a primary school,” says cousin Ibrahim.

The only new buildings in the tribal town belong to engineering, pharmacy and medical colleges, and also residential complexes for students, teachers and staff of the seminary. His son and other relatives, along with orphans and children of lower middle-class Muslim families who cannot afford schooling, now study at various institutes here.

“We receive no government grant, 70 per cent of the cost is taken care of by donations, barely 25 per cent is fees from students. Donors fund the lodging, boarding, all the costs here,” points out Akbar Patel, the campus coordinator.

Explaining how he came to settle in Akkalkuwa, Vastanwi says: “While I was the Arabic teacher at Kantharia (in South Gujarat) some of my students called me to Akkalkuwa. I found Muslims here to be poor materially as well as spiritually. Elders and ulemas advised me baith jao, baith jao. And this is how I am here.”

The Akkalkuwa seminary began from a small hut in Makrani Mohalla, with Vastanwi’s elder brother Hafiz Issac starting with six students. It was in the eighties that Vastanwi shifted base from Gujarat to this Maharashtra town and has stayed put ever since.

The Deoband connection is talked about cautiously, though Vastanwi has been Darul Uloom’s governing council member for a dozen years.

The family is also cautious about another less-known connection: that Vastanwi’s daughter is married to Maulana Arshad Madani’s son. Among those Vastanwi defeated to become Darul Uloom vice-chancellor was Madani.

“Family is family. My daughter is very happy and this has nothing to do with it,” laughs Vastanwi. His relatives are more circumspect, explaining how they were opposed earlier to his move to marry his daughter to an “outsider” — meaning a North Indian. Others attest that Vastanwi preferred his son-in-law due to his education and background.

On the campuses, where there is not a single TV set, staff members, students and families catch up on the latest on Vastanwi, and express their growing exasperation with what’s happening, on computers with a broadband connection.

“My family called me up after the controversy, but we know him as a great teacher. Sometimes he drops in to teach us. This is a nice, quiet place with all amenities to learn in peace,” says Imtiaz Mohammed, who has come all the way from Poonch.

The mainstream colleges mostly have students from across Maharashtra and Gujarat, who admit that their families could not afford the fees in other regular colleges.

Beware Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood by Leslie H. Gelb - THE DAILY BEAST

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-01-29/beware-egypts-muslim-brotherhood/?om_rid=Nl6Jg8&om_mid=_BNRYMcB8X6sDcY

Beware Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood

by Leslie H. Gelb Info

Leslie H. Gelb, a former New York Times columnist and senior government official, is author of Power Rules: How Common Sense Can Rescue American Foreign Policy (HarperCollins 2009), a book that shows how to think about and use power in the 21st century. He is president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations.

As Washington reviews its policy toward Cairo this weekend, officials should think hard about fostering a Mubarak-led transition rather than one led by protesters. Plus, full coverage of the uprising in Egypt.

Difficult as it may be, let's try for an honest and realistic discussion of Egypt. Of course, the Obama administration, most Americans, most Egyptians, and I myself would prefer a democratic government in Cairo instead of President Mubarak's corrupt and repressive establishment. That's not the issue. The real issue is this: If Mubarak tumbles and if Washington uses its influence—and yes, it does have influence at approximately $3 billion in annual total aid—to push him out, what kind of government will follow his? Will it be even less democratic and more repressive? And what will be the implications for U.S. security in the region?

So, let's stop prancing around and proclaiming our devotion to peace, "universal rights" and people power. Instead, let's step back and look hard at what we know and don't know about this popular explosion in the bosom of one of America's most vital allies—and what the United States can and can't do about it.

Photos: Egypt Protests

A protestor in Tahrir Square holds a photo showing President Mubarak's face crossed out on January 29, 2011 in Cairo, Egypt. Inset: Barack Obama. (Photo: Getty Images, AP Photo)

The devil we know is President Mubarak. In the history of Mideast bad guys, he's far from the worst. Remember Saddam Hussein, Ayatollah Khomenei, President Ahmadinejad, President Assad of Syria, and the many and varied leaders of Muslim terrorist groups? No sensible American would excuse Mubarak's corrupt regime—a bureaucracy that would make Kafka blush, a nasty police force, and a repressive political system. Very bad, indeed. On the plus side, he's led Egypt's economy to 6 to 7 percent real growth in past years and has conducted a foreign policy highly supportive of U.S. interests.

Most seriously, he failed to institute gradual political and economic reforms. Consequently, his nation is in flames. U.S. administrations haven't been successful in the past when they tried to push Mubarak in this direction. But it stands to reason that he might now be more amenable to reforms and transitions as long as he is not humiliated.

Now, what about the devils we know less—like the protesters? Of course, there's a slew of journalists, pundits, policy experts and professors who say these aren't devils at all, just "the people": democrats, lawyers, and college-educated and moderate women. No doubt, many of the protesters fit that description. But the dutiful press has interviewed only, say, a few hundred of these good souls. Perhaps many are not so democratic. Perhaps many are Egyptian Tea Partiers who want every Egyptian to have Islamic guns like the Founding Pharaohs. Or perhaps many are just furious and poor and unknowledgeable. My guess is no one really knows a great deal about the protesters.

It would be delusory to take the MB's democratic protestations at face value. Look at who their friends are—like Hamas.

As for most of the other "devils," they are pretty well known. One leadership candidate, of course, is Mohamed ElBaradei, the former U.N. chief nuclear inspector and a good man. But he has almost no constituency inside Egypt, where he's spent little time in recent years. The people aren't going to give him power, and he probably wouldn't know what to do with it anyway. But he could be part of a future government in an ideal world.

The other "devil," now being proclaimed as misunderstood Islamic democrats, is the Muslim Brotherhood, and they should give us great pause. Baloney and wishful thinking aside, the MB would be calamitous for U.S. security. What's more, their current defenders don't really argue that point, as much as they seem to dismiss it as not important or something we can live with. The MB supports Hamas and other terrorist groups, makes friendly noises to Iranian dictators and torturers, would be uncertain landlords of the critical Suez Canal, and opposes the Egyptian-Israeli agreement of 1979, widely regarded as the foundation of peace in the Mideast. Above all, the MB would endanger counter-terrorism efforts in the region and worldwide. That is a very big deal.

As for the MB's domestic democratic credentials, let me show some restraint here. To begin with, no one really has any sound idea of how they might rule; they haven't gotten close enough to power to fully judge. But they'd be bad for non-orthodox Islamic women.

And while MB leaders profess support for democracy and free speech, my mother's response still holds: "They would say that, wouldn't they?" What I see is that they've quieted their usual inflammatory rhetoric in return for Mubarak not banning them. It would be delusory to take the MB's democratic protestations at face value. Look at who their friends are—like Hamas.

The real danger is that our experts, pundits and professors will talk the Arab and American worlds into believing we can all trust the MB. And that's dangerous because, outside of the government, the MB is the only organized political force, the only group capable of taking power. And if they do gain control, it's going to be almost impossible for the people to take it back. Just look at Iran.

For the record, I am not saying that Arabs or Muslims are incapable of democracy. I am most certainly saying that Arabs, Muslims, or anyone else would find it almost impossible to establish a stable democracy out of chaos and years of corruption and injustice.

The Egyptian Army is another power alternative. And it's possible they could provide a bridge to a future civilian democratic government in Cairo. All we know here is that they've kept their noses out of politics and are thought to be generally loyal to Mubarak. The United States could help persuade the parties—if asked to play that role by the military, Mubarak officials, and "the people."

Now, a final word about America's power in this situation. We haven't got any power to shape events. But that does not mean we are without influence. We have influence by virtue of the billions in aid we provide annually, by dint of years of positive contacts with the Egyptian government and business people, and the like. This means something. If the Obama administration leans to the protesters, that would embolden the protesters and demoralize Mubarak supporters. And mind you, those Americans screaming to support "the people" should understand that no matter how much President Obama sides with "the people," few of them will thank him or America for it. And our soothsayers should also understand that when our other Arab friends watch us help remove Mubarak from power by not backing him, they'll believe that they'll be next on the list if they run into trouble. U.S. power would crumble in the region.

In these circumstances, the least problematic of U.S. policies are as follows:

1. Call on all sides to restore order and stability—with as much restraint on government force as possible. Little or nothing can get done if the killings mount. Under present circumstances, Mubarak won't compromise, and if he did, "the people" would only demand more. And everything would fly out of control again. The Army is best positioned to do what's necessary here, including using minimum necessary force.

2. Shut up publicly as much as possible and use American influence privately to guide Mubarak toward a power transition "he could be proud of." He can't stay in office for long, but he can go in a way that befits a strong ally and allows for a legacy he can be proud of. (And by the way, the White House should also stop threatening publicly to cut off aid to his government. Make such points in private.)

3. Bring in Egyptian voices and others respected by them to speak truth to the people. Tell them it will take years to fix Egypt's mountain of problems. Urge them to say that the start would be a coalition government with Mubarak as president for as short a period as possible and no more than a year, followed by elections supervised by the United Nations.

After a daylong meeting on Saturday, the White House decided to lean in this direction—i.e., away from the protesters and toward Mubarak. But according to officials, Obama will not be saying so explicitly.
Our foremost fear should be an abrupt change of power or chaos that will benefit only extremists. Our foremost worry should be self-delusion.


Leslie H. Gelb, a former New York Times columnist and senior government official, is author of Power Rules: How Common Sense Can Rescue American Foreign Policy (HarperCollins 2009), a book that shows how to think about and use power in the 21st century. He is president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long.

For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com

Why is America so afraid? - By Philip Weiss - SALON

Sunday, January 30, 2011

Obama's Administration has opened a Pandora's Box, trying to carry forward former US President George W. Bush's neo-con dictated strategy to impose American hegemony on Arab World under the pretext of promoting democracy. Israel boasts day in and day out that it is the only democracy in the Middle East. Bush had declared that democracy ensures that democrats do not wage war. (He was so dense that he could not make out that even his own US being a democracy, had given the world nothing but wars and more wars.). According to a Telegraph (UK) report, US state department through its embassy in Cairo had been training an Egyptian activist to prepare the ground for a people's revolution in Egypt to bring in a regime change. Now US is having second thoughts as there is every possibility that with democracy, Muslim Brotherhood may take over Egypt, the key nation in Arab World. US may be prepared to do business with Muslim Brotherhood, but Israel gets nightmare when Muslim Brotherhood is even mentioned as a legitimate political movement.

It hardly enters the current discourse as to the worth of democracy in Egypt or any other nation in the world, where a foreign power has so much leverage to decide who should rule the country.

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

ghulammuhammed3@gmail.com

http://ghulammuhammed.blogspot.com 

----------

Saturday, Jan 29, 2011 17:30 ET

War Room

Why is America so afraid?

By Philip Weiss

YouTube/liuqahs15

I'm as thrilled as anyone by what I see in the Cairo streets, but when I turn on American television I see only grim faces. Robert Gibbs looked frightened during his delayed press briefing yesterday afternoon; he didn't know what to say. Obama's comments last night were equivocal and opaque: I'm with Mubarak, for now. This is his 9/11 -- the day Arabs blindsided a president.

I thought this is what he wanted for the Arab world: democracy! But the market dropped, and the cable shows are filled with mistrust of the Arab street. Our talking heads can't stop talking about the Islamists. Chris Matthews cried out against the Muslim Brotherhood and shouted, Who is our guy here? -- as if the U.S. can play a hand on the streets. While his guest Marc Ginsberg, a former ambassador to Morocco whose work seems to be dedicated to finding the few good Arabs out there, said that forces outside Egypt are funding the revolt -- a grotesque statement, given the homegrown flavor of everything we have seen in the streets; and when Matthews pressed him, Ginsberg said, Hamas... Iran.

Matthews's other interpreter was Howard Fineman. Why aren't there more Arab-Americans on U.S. television? I give PBS credit for gathering Mary-Jane Deeb and Samer Shehata (along with the inevitable Steven Cook of CFR) to speak of the real political demands of the protesters (and not galloping Islamism!)-- but when CNN aired Mona Eltahawy saying that the protesters are not violent, the moderator stomped on her and said, what about those burning vehicles?

As if eastern Europe changed without similar destruction.

So racism against Arabs is shutting down the American mind once again. And all my friends must turn to Al Jazeera English to get the soul of the story: that these events are electrifying to Arabs everywhere, a heroic mobilization. And not only to Arabs. When ElBaradei says, I salute the youth for overturning a pharaonic power, lovers of human freedom everywhere must be thrilled. We are seeing a dictator dissolve before our eyes. These are the events we cherished in history books; let us embrace the Egyptian movement.

Why is America so afraid?

Because we are seeing a giant leap in Arab power, in which the people of the largest Arab nation demand that they be allowed to fulfill their potential. This change portends a huge shift in the balance of power in the region. For the U.S. has played only a negative role in the Egyptian advance, supplying the teargas, and it seems inevitable that Egypt will cease to be a client state to the U.S. And thereby threaten the order of the last 30 years.

Whatever government replaces the current one in Egypt, it will not serve American interests, which have been largely defined by Israel, the American-Israeli "imperium," as Helena Cobban put it. Since the 1970s (as Joel Beinin shows here), Egypt has been the lynchpin of a US strategy of supporting Israel. The special relationship with Israel has steered our foreign policy, encouraged the destruction and occupation of Iraq, and even fed American Islamophobia. Key to preserving this order has been our ironclad support for the Arab dictatorships in Jordan, Egypt, Tunisia and elsewhere-- by providing the policy with a "moderate Arab" seal. Hey Egypt was a bulwark against the Islamists, and Egypt was crucial to the peace process, as all the correspondents tell us on American TV.

The danger to America and Israel is that the Egyptian revolution will destroy this false choice of secular dictator-or-crazy Islamists by showing that Arabs are smart articulate people who can handle real democracy if they get to make it themselves. And when they get it, they are likely to strip the mask off the peace process. On Al Jazeera English, there is much talk about the Palestinians. One commentator said that the "humiliation" of the Palestinians is feeding the Egyptian revolt. (I will never forget how Egyptian construction workers put down their tools to stand and applaud the Code Pink buses as we left El Arish for Gaza in June 2009.) And in his beautiful statement calling on Mubarak to serve his country by leaving, ElBaradei said that a government that heeds the people's will would turn soon to the Palestinian issue.

This is the great fear, in Israel and in Washington, too: that revolution in Egypt will reveal the despotism of the existing order for the Palestinian people, who have seen their rights and properties and security and water taken from them during the peace process that Egypt has helped sustain.

The grimness on the faces of American Establishment figures reflects the greatest threat to authority, the crumbling of an existing order. Support for Israel has defined order in this region for decades and steered our support for dictators. Ever since Truman defied the State Department in 1947-48, we have been committed to maintaining a Jewish state in the Middle East despite local opposition. This has required great American expenditure, and probably cost Bobby Kennedy his life, but it has been an order. That order has required lip service to Arab democracy, but hey, Mubarak is better than those Islamists.

Now that true Arab democracy is finally coming on stage, that moral structure falls apart. I say morals, because support for Israel has always had a moral rationale. The American establishment felt good about our support for Israel because it seemed like the right thing: We had helped to solve the age-old Jewish Question of Europe. We had ended Jewish persecution. Israel was the answer to Never again! If you doubt that this is the moral calculus of our policy, step into the Center for Jewish History in New York this month. There must be four or five exhibits that touch on Jewish persecution in the Middle East and Europe. The destruction of Italian Jews. The destruction of Berlin businesses that provided the finest linens, photography, interiors... The persecution of Moroccan Jews. It never ends, along with an exhibit dedicated to the "miracle" of Israel's creation with American Jewish support.

Thus the Jewish community has hunkered down in an anachronistic identity-- secure in the completely-contradictory knowledge that the American power structure will support Israel.
All this is changing in Egypt. An Arab liberation story is forcing itself into world consciousness. 

"The vast, vast majority of protesters are peaceful people, mostly middle class, and they are showing great solidarity. People are still defending the Egyptian Museum," Issandr El-Amrani reports, inspiringly. There is bound to be great suffering in Egypt, we pray for a smooth transition, but if the Egyptians are only left to handle their own affairs, who doubts that the polity that will emerge from this chaos will be more responsive to human rights, and will strike a blow against the fetters of anti-Arab racism that have chained the American mind.

Philip Weiss is the co-editor of " The Goldstone Report: The Legacy of the Landmark Investigation of the Gaza Conflict ."

Egypt protests: America's secret backing for rebel leaders behind uprising - The Telegraph. UK

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/egypt/8289686/Egypt-protests-Americas-secret-backing-for-rebel-leaders-behind-uprising.html

Egypt protests: America's secret backing for rebel leaders behind uprising

The American government secretly backed leading figures behind the Egyptian uprising who have been planning “regime change” for the past three years, The Daily Telegraph has learned.

By Tim Ross, Matthew Moore and Steven Swinford 9:23PM GMT 28 Jan 2011  
1323 Comments

The American Embassy in Cairo helped a young dissident attend a US-sponsored summit for activists in New York, while working to keep his identity secret from Egyptian state police.

On his return to Cairo in December 2008, the activist told US diplomats that an alliance of opposition groups had drawn up a plan to overthrow President Hosni Mubarak and install a democratic government in 2011.

 
The secret document in full

He has already been arrested by Egyptian security in connection with the demonstrations and his identity is being protected by The Daily Telegraph.

The crisis in Egypt follows the toppling of Tunisian president Zine al-Abedine Ben Ali, who fled the country after widespread protests forced him from office.

The disclosures, contained in previously secret US diplomatic dispatches released by the WikiLeaks website, show American officials pressed the Egyptian government to release other dissidents who had been detained by the police.

Mr Mubarak, facing the biggest challenge to his authority in his 31 years in power, ordered the army on to the streets of Cairo yesterday as rioting erupted across Egypt.

Tens of thousands of anti-government protesters took to the streets in open defiance of a curfew. An explosion rocked the centre of Cairo as thousands defied orders to return to their homes. As the violence escalated, flames could be seen near the headquarters of the governing National Democratic Party.

Police fired rubber bullets and used tear gas and water cannon in an attempt to disperse the crowds.
At least five people were killed in Cairo alone yesterday and 870 injured, several with bullet wounds. Mohamed ElBaradei, the pro-reform leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner, was placed under house arrest after returning to Egypt to join the dissidents. Riots also took place in Suez, Alexandria and other major cities across the country.

William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, urged the Egyptian government to heed the “legitimate demands of protesters”. Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, said she was “deeply concerned about the use of force” to quell the protests.

In an interview for the American news channel CNN, to be broadcast tomorrow, David Cameron said: “I think what we need is reform in Egypt. I mean, we support reform and progress in the greater strengthening of the democracy and civil rights and the rule of law.”

The US government has previously been a supporter of Mr Mubarak’s regime. But the leaked documents show the extent to which America was offering support to pro-democracy activists in Egypt while publicly praising Mr Mubarak as an important ally in the Middle East.

In a secret diplomatic dispatch, sent on December 30 2008, Margaret Scobey, the US Ambassador to Cairo, recorded that opposition groups had allegedly drawn up secret plans for “regime change” to take place before elections, scheduled for September this year.

The memo, which Ambassador Scobey sent to the US Secretary of State in Washington DC, was marked “confidential” and headed: “April 6 activist on his US visit and regime change in Egypt.”
It said the activist claimed “several opposition forces” had “agreed to support an unwritten plan for a transition to a parliamentary democracy, involving a weakened presidency and an empowered prime minister and parliament, before the scheduled 2011 presidential elections”. The embassy’s source said the plan was “so sensitive it cannot be written down”.

Ambassador Scobey questioned whether such an “unrealistic” plot could work, or ever even existed. However, the documents showed that the activist had been approached by US diplomats and received extensive support for his pro-democracy campaign from officials in Washington. The embassy helped the campaigner attend a “summit” for youth activists in New York, which was organised by the US State Department.

Cairo embassy officials warned Washington that the activist’s identity must be kept secret because he could face “retribution” when he returned to Egypt. He had already allegedly been tortured for three days by Egyptian state security after he was arrested for taking part in a protest some years earlier.

The protests in Egypt are being driven by the April 6 youth movement, a group on Facebook that has attracted mainly young and educated members opposed to Mr Mubarak. The group has about 70,000 members and uses social networking sites to orchestrate protests and report on their activities.

The documents released by WikiLeaks reveal US Embassy officials were in regular contact with the activist throughout 2008 and 2009, considering him one of their most reliable sources for information about human rights abuses.

Inside the White House's Egypt Scramble by John Barry - THE DAILY BEAST

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-01-29/egypt-protests-historic-discussions-at-the-white-house/full/

Inside the White House's Egypt Scramble

by John Barry

As protests erupted in Egypt, Washington struggled desperately to find the right response to the crisis. John Barry reports on the administration’s decision-making. Plus, full coverage of the Egypt revolt.

For three days straight, as the Cairo crisis gathered momentum, they had hardly left their desks. Now, huddled in the big office of their boss—one of the administration policy-makers trying to calibrate the U.S. response to the unfolding drama—the advisers watched Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s first statement. Two television sets were running, one showing CNN and the other a satellite feed from Al Jazeera. Someone had popped popcorn in a microwave. In the old days, their boss reflected, he would have ordered in pizza, but since 9/11 the ever-expanding security precautions had shut down deliveries of take-out.

Gallery: Demonstrations in Egypt

Ben Curtis / AP Photo

The mood was buoyant, as revealed by interviews with several officials involved in the ongoing administration debate that provide at least a preliminary glimpse of their concerns as Egypt spiraled toward chaos.

Had there been an office pool, the boss thought, the favored bet would have been that Mubarak was about to “do an LBJ” and repeat what President Lyndon Johnson did in 1968 in the face of a wave of protests: announce he would not stand in the upcoming presidential election. Certainly, Mubarak’s departure would present the U.S. with a new set of daunting challenges, but at least it would quiet the Egyptian streets and buy some time for mediation.

But as the Egyptian president spoke—a couple of the Arabic speakers in the room providing translation—the optimism died. Mubarak announced he was dismissing his government; he talked of reforms. But he also made clear his determination to stay on. There were groans, shaking of heads. This wasn’t going to be enough to halt the tumult in half of Egypt’s cities, and, more disconcertingly, Mubarak’s assertion that the demonstrations were “part of a bigger plot to shake the stability” of Egypt sounded ominous. The Egyptian president had called out the Army on Friday; now his speech sounded as if he was preparing to use it. President Obama’s Middle East advisers believed that if Egyptian security forces opened fire on demonstrators, the country would likely explode. As Mubarak ended his address, someone in the room voiced the thought on everyone’s mind: “Well, what do we do now?”

In the White House, that judgment was swiftly made. Mubarak’s speech was a climactic moment: It was time for President Obama to act.

There were groans, shaking of heads. This wasn’t going to be enough to halt the tumult in half of Egypt’s cities, and, more disconcertingly, Mubarak’s assertion that the demonstrations were “part of a bigger plot to shake the stability” of Egypt sounded ominous.

Throughout the week, as the crisis gathered storm in Egypt, the administration had otherwise been slow to react, seemingly always one step behind events. This was partly because neither the U.S. intelligence community nor diplomats on the ground foresaw how swiftly the protests in Egypt would gather momentum—even if everyone realized that virtually the entire Arab world is a tinder box of pent-up frustration, with despotic regimes unable to meet the needs of, especially, their youth. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton herself put it last month, in a speech in Doha that now seems uncannily prescient, Arab leaders would face growing unrest, extremism, and even rebellion unless they reformed “corrupt institutions and a stagnant political order.” It was the starkest warning ever delivered by a senior American official, and a message brought home a few days later when Tunisia erupted in revolt.

Yet, when it came to Egypt, the tone was different, and as the protests in Cairo gathered momentum, Clinton’s initial public comments were a mixture of fact and hopeful fiction. “Our assessment is that the Egyptian government is stable and is looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people,” she said, an assessment that didn’t take long to be overtaken by events.

Whether Mubarak indeed was committed to responding to “the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people” remained an open question. Clinton’s statement, however, had been carefully calibrated, coming after the first round of what proved to be an exhausting week of discussions by President Obama and his top officials.

From the start, according to sources privy to the discussions, talks revolved around two objectives: how to cajole Mubarak to respond to the demonstrations, while, at the same time, not saying anything publicly that could be taken as American approval of the forcible overthrow of Arab regimes. But as the demonstrations grew in intensity, that balance became increasingly fraught. 

The demonstrators were, after all, demanding human and political rights to which the United States is committed, but which Mubarak showed no sign of granting.

After much discussion, it was decided that President Obama would not try to speak directly to Mubarak. According to an informed source, the assessment was that president-to-president intervention should be held in reserve as a last recourse. Besides, any exchange with Mubarak would require Obama to say whether he supported Mubarak’s continued rule. And the president was in a bind: He couldn’t bluntly say no. On the other hand, Egyptian authorities would instantly broadcast any expression of support as proof that Washington was backing Mubarak’s hold on power. (Shown this article for review, the White House said: "There's nothing we'd comment on here at the moment.")

So the administration tried to reach Mubarak by other means. The Cairo embassy reached out to his advisers. Other Arab leaders were enlisted. Across the region, the events in Cairo were viewed with mounting concern by other governments. The longer their television screens were filled with those scenes of protest, the likelier they were to trigger comparable uprisings in other capitals. The administration’s message was clear: for your own sake, persuade Mubarak he has to quell the revolt by offering concessions.

By Thursday, though, the Cairo embassy was reporting that Mubarak was mobilizing the Army. Everyone knew that Friday, the Muslim day of prayer, would see the biggest demonstrations yet. Mubarak’s mobilization of the military could only mean that he was set on suppression. There was a real risk of bloodshed—and the judgment both of analysts in Washington and of Arab leaders in other capitals was that killings on any scale could ignite a firestorm—not only in Egypt but across the region.

Taking advantage of a pre-arranged Q&A session on YouTube, Obama warned: “The government has to be careful about not resorting to violence.” Mubarak, he said, needed to be “moving ahead on reform—political reform, economic reform”.

Whether Obama’s warning influenced Mubarak’s actions is unclear. The Army did roll into the streets of Cairo and other cities on Friday. But it did not shoot; and, on Friday evening, Mubarak appeared on television for the first time in the crisis.

Meanwhile at the Pentagon, a high-powered delegation of Egyptian military leaders, including the armed forces Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Sami Hafez Enan, cut short a scheduled week-long visit after only a few hours, departing instead for the airport. Their Pentagon hosts wished them well, with careful expressions of hope that a peaceful resolution of the crisis in Egypt would permit the continuation of the U.S. military’s long-standing relationship with Egypt’s armed forces. (Since the U.S. funds the Egyptian military to the tune of $1.3 billion a year, the message was clear.)

Administration officials suspect—or, at any rate, hope—that Obama’s blunt declaration forced Mubarak’s hand, prompting the Egyptian president to address his nation. What Mubarak offered in his televised speech, however, was “too little, too late,” as someone at that popcorn-eating gathering said. There was no prospect, Obama’s advisers believed, that Mubarak’s vague promises of reform would pacify the streets.

At a meeting on Friday afternoon, Obama and his top officials, including Clinton, Vice President Joe Biden, and National Security Adviser Tom Donilon among them, concluded that the time had come for Obama to talk directly to Mubarak. And Mubarak’s address to the Egyptian people had given Obama the opening he wanted. The White House organized the call.

It was an intervention that dramatically—and publicly—escalated the American involvement in the Egyptian crisis. In an address from the White House, Obama outlined what he had told Mubarak, putting the administration unequivocally behind the demonstrators’ demands. “The people of Egypt have rights that are universal,” Obama said in his speech. “And the United States will stand up for them everywhere.” The president also warned both sides against violence but his message was clear: “When President Mubarak addressed the Egyptian people tonight, he pledged a better democracy and greater economic opportunity. I just spoke to him after his speech, and I told him he has a responsibility to give meaning to those words, to take concrete steps and actions that deliver on that promise.” And, said Obama, “we are committed to working with the Egyptian government and the Egyptian people—all quarters—to achieve” those goals.

It was a breath-taking pledge, with Obama coming close to making the U.S. the guarantor that Mubarak will act. In Egypt, his reference to “all quarters” will be taken to suggest that the U.S. will even reach out to the Muslim Brotherhood, an unprecedented step.

In the last week, the administration has come a long way.

John Barry joined Newsweek's Washington bureau as national security correspondent in July 1985. He has reported extensively on American intervention in Afghanistan, Kosovo, Haiti, Bosnia, Iraq and Somalia and efforts for peace in the Middle East. In 2002, he co-wrote "The War Crimes of Afghanistan" (8/26/02 cover) which won a National Headliner Award and was a finalist in the ASME National Magazine Awards for public service and a finalist in the SPJ Deadline Club Award for investigative reporting.

Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long.

For inquiries, p lease contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com

Burney's 26/11 turnaround surprises many By Mohammed Wajihuddin, TNN - The Times of India, Mumbai

Sunday, January 30, 2011

Comments posted on The Times of India website and Face-book, over Mohammed Wajihuddin's news story: Burney's 26/11 turnedaround surprises many:

Contrary to what Javed Anand's low blow on a whistle-blower losing his credibility would have it, the sheer 180% degree turnaround by Burney is so forced and enforced that only a novice would not make out the heavy arm-twisting and threats Burney would have gone through over such a turnaround. Dragging Pakistan as a potential target cannot blanket and explain so many lose ends that are still to be connected. Given Congress Party's political vulnerability vis as vis Saffron intransigence on an array of contentious matters in their political tit for tat, the 'aar paar' war between the two Brahminical parties could be turning into some kind of mutual settlement moves and both Digvijay and Burney would have been asked to pull back. The facts about Karkare and the role of RSS connected terrorists are already in the public arena. Burney's retraction will hardly make any difference in people's case against Saffron terrorism.

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

ghulammuhammed3@gmail.com

http://ghulammuhammed.blogspot.com  

---

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Burneys-26/11-turnaround-surprises-many/articleshow/7387472.cms

Burney's 26/11 turnaround surprises many

Mohammed Wajihuddin, TNN, Jan 30, 2011, 12.40am IST

MUMBAI: Senior Urdu editor Aziz Burney's turnaround on his much-vaunted stand on the perpetrators of the heinous 26/11 attack has surprised the Muslim intelligentsia. Burney, through a series of impassioned articles in a daily that he edits, had tried to shred the official line that Hindutva terrorists were not involved in the 26/11 attacks. But on Friday he surprised many when different editions of the daily carried a front-page apology from Burney, saying he felt sorry if he had hurt the feelings of 'deshbhakts and deshpremis (patriots)'. with his views

Burney had compiled his articles into a book provocatively titled RSS ki Saazish: 26/11, where he had differed from the investigating agencies' conclusion that no saffron terror activists were involved in 26/11. Senior Congress leader Digvijay Singh had attended the launch of Burney's book on December 6, 2010 in Delhi and on December 27 in Mumbai. Burney had consistently claimed that the circumstances in which some top police officers, including then ATS chief Hemant Karkare died, pointed to a possible involvement of some saffron elements in the 26/11 carnage. ButBurney's strident stand lost its sting when he meekly apologized for some of his writings, especially the book's title.

He has even said that he was planning a different title for the book.

"If he was not sure who were behind the 26/11, he should not have opposed the view of the investigating agencies. He misled his readers," said Maulana Mahmood Daryabadi of the All-India Ulema Council.

A source said that Burney was under intense pressure to clarify and apologize for his views, which had irked the investigating agencies and antagonized the Sangh Parivar. When contacted by TOI, to explain why he changed his stand, Burney said, "As an Indian, I cannot differ from the government's stand on a significant event like 26/11. Circumstantial evidence procured by the investigating agencies proves that my stand was wrong."

"When he saw the Hindutva hand and not the ISI involvement in 26/11, he showed his incapability as a journalist. With his unqualified apology for it, he has lost his credibility," said Javed Anand of Muslims for Secular Democracy (MSD).
-----------

Cairo’s audacity of hope - Indian Express

Saturday, January 29, 2011

http://www.indianexpress.com/comments/cairos-audacity-of-hope/743444#postComment

Comments posted on Indian Express website over news story: Cairo’s audacity of hope

The serial toppling of Arab/African govts. is a new wave of regime change mode of war on the weak by the strong: the US. It has exhausted its funds for wars by losing in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is now using Face-book and Twitter, as new tools of war to sow dissent and divisions in restive people of the region and impose its hegemony through its chosen proxies. Progressives like herd of sheep, are helping US strengthen its stranglehold on new colonies. US after unleashing its fake 'war on terror' is now embark on a new fake 'revolution for democracy' campaign by organized protests even in friendly countries to deepen its tentacles in their governance. Egypt is targeted for refusing to supply gas to Israel. Just like Mullah Omar was toppled and demonized for refusing to give UNOCAL permission of a pipeline through Afghanistan. Argentina's govt toppled (for cutting in on UNOCAL). Indian media and people should be very vigilant with US moves in the name of common strategies that will eventually rob of its freedom.

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

ghulammuhammed3@gmail.com

http://ghulammuhammed.blogspot.com  

--------------------

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/cairos-audacity-of-hope/743444/0

Sat, 29 Jan 2011

Cairo’s audacity of hope

New York Times

Tags : Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, streets of Cairo, Al Jazeera, Middle East diplomacy

Posted: Sat Jan 29 2011, 02:18 hrs
Cairo:

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak ordered the military into the streets to reinforce police struggling to contain one of the most serious challenges to his long and autocratic rule.


The president also imposed an overnight curfew nationwide, but fighting continued on the streets of Cairo and smoke from fires blanketed one of the city’s main streets along the Nile. The ruling party’s building was in flames at nightfall, and dramatic video footage on Al Jazeera showed a crowd pushing what they identified as a burning police car off a bridge.

CNN said Mubarak was expected to deliver a televised address, though it was unclear when that would happen. Internet traffic into and out of the country was cut off and cellphone networks disrupted. Vodafone said “all mobile operators in Egypt have been instructed to suspend services in selected areas.”

Demonstrations began earlier in the day as thousands poured from mosques after noon prayers, growing increasingly violent as protesters clashed with police who fired tear gas, rubber bullets and water cannons. The demonstrations, on what protesters called a “day of wrath,” were on a scale far beyond anything in the memory of most residents.

The unrest in Egypt came after weeks of turmoil across the Arab world that toppled one leader in Tunisia and encouraged protesters to overcome deep-rooted fears of their autocratic leaders and take to the streets. But Egypt is a special case — a heavyweight in Middle East diplomacy, in part because of its peace treaty with Israel, and a key ally of the United States. The country, often the fulcrum on which currents in the region turn, also has one of the largest and most sophisticated security forces in the Middle East.

Calling out the military is a signal of how dramatically the situation had spiraled out of control. The army, one of the country’s most powerful and respected institutions, prefers to remain behind the scenes and has not been sent into the streets to quell unrest in many years. But the police, a much reviled force prone to violent retribution against anyone who publicly defies the state, appeared unable to quell the unrest. In several cases in the capital and elsewhere, the police were forced to back down by throngs of protesters.

In one of the most dramatic scenes of the day, in Alexandria, protesters snatched batons, shields and helmets from the police. Honking cars drove up and down a main street, holding police riot shields and truncheons out the windows as trophies.


In both Cairo and Alexandria, some army patrols were greeted with applause and waves from the crowds — a seemingly incongruous response from demonstrators who say they want to bring down the president.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, reading a prepared statement, called Friday on Egypt’s government to “restrain the security forces” and said that “reform is absolutely critical to the well-being of Egypt.”

“We urge the Egyptian authorities to allow peaceful protest and to reverse the unprecedented steps it has take to cut off communications,” she said. She also urged that protesters “refrain from violence and express themselves peacefully.”

The unrest in Egypt, a close ally, poses unique challenges for the Obama Administration, which has publicly supported Mubarak but privately pushed him to reform after decades in power.

At least one person appeared to have been killed during rioting in Suez, east of Cairo and the site of some of the most violent clashes. Reuters reported that protesters were carrying a man’s body through the streets as one demonstrator shouted, “They have killed my brother.” Details of his death were not immediately clear.

According to the Associated Press, Egyptian security officials said they had placed the most prominent opposition figures, Mohamed ElBaradei, under house arrest, but that could not be independently confirmed and reports throughout the day had been contradictory.

Shortly before, police doused ElBaradei with a water cannon and beat supporters who tried to shield him. 

“This is an indication of a barbaric regime,” said ElBaradei, the former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, as he took refuge in a nearby mosque. “By doing this they are ensuring their destruction is at hand.”

At Al Azhar in old Cairo, thousands of people poured from one of the most iconic mosques of Sunni Islam, chanting “The people want to bring down the regime.” DAVID D KIRKPATRICK & ALAN COWELL

TWEETS POSTED BY GHULAM MUHAMMED ON FRIDAY, JANUARY 28, 2011 - ON ORGANISED PUBLIC PROTEST IN ARAB WORLD AND AFRICA

TWEETS POSTED BY GHULAM MUHAMMED ON FRIDAY, JANUARY 28, 2011

@GhulamMuhammed Ghulam Muhammed

Aljazeera English TV acts like a war room for US/Uk/Israel waging a proxy war to overthrow regimes in Arab World and Africa thru reporters

@GhulamMuhammed Ghulam Muhammed

The passion AlJazeera brings blow by blow commentary on Egypt protests, gives people of the world virtual participation in an illegality.

@GhulamMuhammed Ghulam Muhammed

US role so uncharacteric of Obama's character, is a blatant attempt to impose its will on Nations; while swearing in the name of democracy.

@GhulamMuhammed Ghulam Muhammed

Is Obama in charge or Republicans have hijacked his presidency?

@GhulamMuhammed Ghulam Muhammed

Warning to Indian Government dithering with corruption and price rise; lest US/UK/Israel may try their 'regime change' strategy in India.

@GhulamMuhammed Ghulam Muhammed

The world cannot be silent to such an audacious serial toppling of governments that is nothing short of waging war on UN member countries.

Purohit plotted to kill RSS leader Indresh Kumar: Report - The Indian Express - Mumbai - India

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/purohit-plotted-to-kill-rss-leader-indresh-kumar-report/743063/0

Fri, 28 Jan 2011

Purohit plotted to kill RSS leader Indresh Kumar: Report

By Shishir Gupta

Tags : Indresh Kumar, RSS, Colonel Prasad Srikant Purohit, Malegaon blast, Abhinav Bharat, Mecca Masjid, Samjhauta Express

Posted: Fri Jan 28 2011, 03:03 hrs

New Delhi:
A Military Intelligence report of the Army on disgraced officer Lt Colonel Prasad Srikant Purohit — now in jail for his alleged role in the Malegaon 2008 blast and links with Hindu extremists — reveals that his organisation, Abhinav Bharat, had plotted to kill senior RSS leader Indresh Kumar.

Its reason: Indresh, Purohit suspected, was the “mole of the ISI” (Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence) in the Sangh Parivar and had received fake Indian currency to the tune of Rs 21 crore from the Pak agency.

Indresh’s name also figures in statements made by some of the accused in a string of terror attacks on Muslim targets, including Malegaon, Mecca Masjid and the Samjhauta Express. Indresh has denied any role and said the government has been playing politics with the investigation.

The plot to kill Indresh Kumar was revealed by Purohit in his interrogation in connection with the September 29, 2008 Malegaon blast, according to the MI report which has been obtained by The Indian Express.

Incidentally, the MI report on Purohit says: “Malegaon bomb blast coincided with birthday celebrations of Col Purohit’s younger son. It may not be a mere coincidence.”

Purohit was jointly questioned by the Maharashtra Anti-Terror Squad (ATS) then headed by Hemant Karkare, the Intelligence Bureau and Military Intelligence-9 on October 29-30, 2008.

The MI report says Abhinav Bharat was Purohit’s brainchild, set up to counter ISI activities in India with “financial assistance” from wealthy RSS supporters. The report says that a Pune-based rich, “staunch” RSS supporter, Shyam Apte, was roped in to finance the plot to kill “ISI agent” Indresh with a fraud Sharda Peeth Shankaracharya alias Dayanand Pandey jumping onto the bandwagon to make money.

“Ajay Rahilkar aka Raja handled the financial affairs (of Abhinav Bharat) as directed by Col Purohit. One Shyam Apte (70 years), a committed worker of RSS was the main provider of funds. Rahilkar has disclosed payment of Rs 3.20 lakh to Rakesh Dhavde (the arms supplier of Abhinav Bharat) to buy arms as directed by Purohit. This has been separately confirmed by Dhavde and Col Purohit, who stated that these weapons were being procured on directions of Shankaracharya who tasked Col Purohit to eliminate one Indresh Kumar, a senior RSS functionary based in Delhi. Indresh Kumar was allegedly an agent of ISI and along with one Subedar Singh was also involved in pumping of fake Indian currency,” says the interrogation report.

While Purohit claimed that it was “Shankaracharya” who asked him to “eliminate” Indresh, Shyam Apte told the Maharashtra ATS that it was Purohit who told him that during a special assignment in Nepal, entrusted to him by Director General Military Intelligence, he unearthed the involvement of Indresh in ISI activities.

Purohit then reportedly claimed that Army headquarters didn’t act on his report and frustrated at this, he (Purohit) approached Apte to help kill Indresh as he was “the enemy of the country and Hindu dharma.”
The report underlines the fact that Sadhvi Pragya Singh also said that when she discussed the issue of the “proposed elimination” of Indresh, who was like a father to Pragya, the “Shankaracharya conveyed that it was Purohit who had requested him to accommodate two commandos (at his Faridabad ashram) in Delhi.”

The report says: “Shankaracharya told Pragya that he refused to accommodate the two commandos of Colonel Purohit as they had been sent to eliminate Indresh Kumar.”

The plan to assassinate Indresh was activated during Purohit’s visit to Delhi from Panchmarhi during January 26-29, 2008. According to the report, Purohit stayed at the Shankaracharya Ashram in Faridabad and introduced Major (Retd) Ramesh Upadhyay, Bharat Bhai and Sameer Kulkarni to Dayanand Pandey. According to Purohit, it was during this meeting that the Shankaracharya asked him to procure weapons for killing Indresh.

According to the report, it was during Abhinav Bharat’s first public meeting in Bhopal on April 11-12, 2008 that Purohit managed to bring the Shankaracharya and Swami Aseemanand on a common platform. “Presence of Sadhvi, Ramji Kalsangra and Sandeep Dange at the function also demonstrated his proximity to the core group who had undertaken anti-Islamic acts in the recent past. The officer initially denied his presence at the meeting but on confrontation with Sadhvi admitted to his illegal presence. He also admitted handing over a 9 mm pistol to one Aloke, close associate of Shankaracharya, at Bhopal Railway Station to kill Indreshji in Delhi,” the MI report said.

A Pak view on India:WikiLeaks may put India in big trouble - By Afshain Afzal - THE NEWS.COM - A Jang Group portal

A PAK VIEW ON INDIA:
http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=28148&Cat=2&dt=1/28/2011

WikiLeaks may put India in big trouble

 

By Afshain Afzal

Friday, January 28, 2011

 

Where Wikileaks served as a blessing in disguise for the western nations as it diverted the world’s attention from their humiliating defeat in Iraq, Afghanistan and other theatres, it also covered their war crimes and human right violations in these countries.

They also proved to be a bombshell for other countries, including India, as it exposed Washington’s view and analysis towards them as well as it compromised desires and ambitions of various leaders on different debatable issues. Interestingly, the so called ‘War on Terror’ has its own rules which have been authenticated by the United Nations Security Council resolutions but can we apply these on revelations through Wikileaks? The issue is to ascertain if these rules are same for all countries, organisations, groups and individuals.

Although WikiLeaks are nothing but a conspiracy of western intelligence agencies against their enemies and adversaries yet for the sake of discussion, let’s put India on the litmus test to check the authentication of the Wikileaks. Last month, the Samajwadi Party legislator Abu Asim Azmi brought into the notice of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly during its session that according to the Wikileaks disclosure, the Hindu militant organization Rashtriya Sevak Sangh (RSS) was a thousand times more dangerous than the Al-Qaeda. In the same regard, Azmi told the Assembly “It has been exposed in the Wikileaks as to how a thousand times more dangerous is the RSS than the Al Qaeda. Therefore, I demand that strong and stern action must be taken against the RSS.” 
Although, the remark and demand by Azmi drew strong protests from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Shiv Sena (SS) and Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) legislators and others but what he highlighted was a leak from the respectable offices of India’s most trusted friend and long time partner the United States of America (USA). Regardless of the fact that already New Delhi has many times sacrificed its sovereignty to please this beloved friend, the recent leaks have exposed the US diplomats’ long term strategy against the Hindus, which interestingly has appeared in black and white this time. One wonders if still any Indian has doubts in his mind about the US long term strategy in this region and conspiracy behind the US-Indo partnership.

If we recall, on September 24, 2001, President George W. Bush stated, “We will direct every resource at our command to win the war against terrorists, every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence. We will starve the terrorists of funding.” To achieve this objective, US Congress worked closely with the Department of the Treasury, along with the Department of Justice and took solids action against financial intermediaries and facilitators who were suspected to infuse terrorist organisations with money, material and support and they were held accountable along with those who perpetrate terrorist acts. It is pertinent to mention here that the campaign was mainly against the Muslims, especially those doubted to have links with religious outfits including Al Qaida and Taliban.

If we consider the Wikileaks as authentic and Hindu organization Rashtriya Sevak Sangh is a thousand times more dangerous than the Al-Qaeda, now it is time to take action. It would be a test for Washington and New Delhi that whether they would take action against RSS and all those who are directly and indirectly liked with the assistance to this organization. Confirmed intelligence input says that Shiv Sena working President Uddhav Thackeray had been receiving money from two Mumbai-based industrial houses namely Reliance and Tata Group of Companies.

This information is not hearsay as it is based on the intercepted phone recordings between Tata Group spokeswoman Shalani and Public Relations Corporate chief Nira Radia. We have a precedent that US, UK, India and other countries were in the forefront to ban all organizations, groups and individuals suspected to have anytime helped organizations suspected to be involved in terrorism like Al Qaida, Taliban, Lashkar-e-Tayyiaba, Al Khidmat Trust and many other religious, political and charitable organizations as well as freeze their bank accounts and assets. Now let’s see, what will be done about the Indian religious terrorist organisations and their financers including Reliance and Tata Group of companies.

afshainafzal@yahoo.com

Appeal to Muslims and other Deprived Groups to form Local Census Committees in All Villages & Mohallas : All India Muslim Majlis-e- Mushawarat

ALL INDIA MUSLIM MAJLIS-E-MUSHAWARAT

[Umbrella body of the Indian Muslim Organisations]

D-250, Abul fazal Enclave, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi-110025

Tel.: 011-26946780 Fax: 011-26947346 Email: mushawarat@mushawarat.com

Press Statement

Appeal to Muslims and other Deprived Groups to form Local Census Committees in All Villages & Mohallas

To Assist Fully in Census Phase II on Population Enumeration between February 9 & 28, 2011 

New Delhi: 25 January 2011, Mr Syed Shahabuddin, President All India Muslim Majlis-e- Mushawarat, has issued the following statement.

 

Phase II of the Census shall enumerate Population to produce the socio-economic demographic profile of the country. For this enumeration the Census Commissioner has framed a Schedule of Questions to be asked of all households. The results of this enumeration will have a direct bearing on the policies, development programs & financial allocations at every level for the next decade.

 

The enumerator will visit every household between 9 & 28 February, 2011 and speak to the heads of the households, and some other members, if necessary and record replies separately, for each household.

 

The Schedule has many questions including a question on Religion and another on Language and also on Age, Education, Marital Status and Physical Disability etc.

The AIMMM considers it imperative that all households participate fully in the Enumeration. All Muslims should indicate Islam  as their religion and their mother tongue as their Language. Those, whose mother tongue   is Urdu, specially in northern states should indicate Urdu, not any local dialect they may speak at home.

 

The AIMMM appeals to the educated youth among Muslims and all other deprived groups to form small Census committees in every mohalla and village which should accompany the enumerators from household to household & from family to family, to ensure that enumeration is universal and nobody is left out and that the replies by the households are recorded correctly.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Authorised for Publication Abdul Wahid

New Delhi, 25 January, 2011 Office Secretary

OPEN LETTER TO MARK MAGNIER OF LOS ANGELE TIMES ..... By Ghulam Muhammed

OPEN LETTER TO MARK MAGNIER OF LOS ANGELE TIMES .....

Mark Magnier
Los Angeles Times,

You had done a hatchet job as far as Noor Masjid demolition is concerned. First thing, you have taken this incident in focus and tried to make your Muslim-baiting more platable by expanding the coverage to all religious sites. That cannot hide the fact that your New Delhi correspondent, a Hindu, had a bias against Muslims and their Masjids, which are a regular target of communal Hindu authorities, a la Israel, to keep on demilishing old Masjid structures all over the country and earn political luarels from their Hindu votes banks.

The court case demolishing Noor Masjid, had yet to run its course. The Religious Awkaf, a state organisation with full documentation did have records proving the title of the Noor Masjid as legal and legitimate. However, the state authorities deliberately played truant and did not take up the case with the judiciary and the local municipal authorities ever eager to target Muslims, had a field day to show who is rule the country.

Your reporter Ansul Rana and you are responsible for this motivated shoddy reporting and you must dig up all the facts and rewrite the full and truthful account of the trouble instigated over Noor Masjid.

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

<ghulammuhammed3@gmail.com>

PS. : Why LA TIMES is so concerned about religious places half a way around the world? Is this not a long range mischief-mongering?
------------------------------

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-india-religion-20110124,0,2869899.story

Illegal religious structures spread through India

Mosques and temples encroach on sidewalks, schools and roads, despite court orders to stop them. Devotees help ensure the structures are hard to tear down once they are built.

Muslims offer Friday prayers at the site of a mosque demolished by authorities in New Delhi. With land at a premium and donations sizable, activists in India say religion is good business. (Adnan Abidi, Reuters / January 13, 2011)

By Mark Magnier, Los Angeles Times January 24, 2011

 

Reporting from New Delhi —

They struck shortly after dawn on a weekday morning this month, taking bulldozers, backhoes and sledgehammers to the Noor Masjid mosque. But the stealth tactics by municipal workers fell short: Well before they finished razing the building, 1,000 Muslim protesters had gathered, and things got ugly.

Across town a few hours later, the city's public works department was busy again, this time leveling the Hindu Pushp Vihar temple. Followers clashed with police, devotees sang to the gods and protesters blocked a main road, sparking massive traffic jams.

---

Get dispatches from Times correspondents around the globe delivered to your inbox with our daily World newsletter. Sign up »

---

Illegal religious structures are mushrooming across India, eating into sidewalks, schools, roads, even prisons, despite numerous court orders to check their spread.

Once built, they're tough to remove in a country with strong religious passions and a history of communal riots.

"Governments find it difficult to touch anything to do with religion," said Gautam Bhatia, an architect and author.

For days after the mosque razing, protests raged. The most intense confrontation came during Friday prayers when thousands of young Muslims sporting skullcaps battered down police barricades, yelling, "God is great!"

"If we don't stand up, they'll walk all over us," Bashir Ahmed said. "They have no right to demolish our mosques."

Faced with protracted opposition, city officials eventually announced that they'd consider rebuilding the mosque.

The exact number of illegal religious structures in India is unknown, but an estimated 60,000 exist in New Delhi, up from 560 in 1980, while a recent survey found 250,000 more in five of India's 28 states. Built on public land without permission, building permits or much thought to traffic safety or crowd control, they range from makeshift to the decidedly elaborate.

Most start small. An illegal shrine may begin its life as a few ornaments and a candle in a tree. 

Then a bench is added. Then concrete floors, a roof, a sleeping alcove.

New Delhi's "ancient" Shiv Shakti Mochan Temple near Parliament is a case in point. Dedicated to Lord Shiva, it started in 1968 as a bird-house-sized structure, said longtime neighbor Tara Singh, pointing out a backlit box wedged into the adjoining banyan tree.

In defiance of a Supreme Court order against expansion, it's now 20 feet by 60 feet with walls, columns, marble floors, twinkling lights, a sink and life-size statues in glass cases, completely blocking the sidewalk. Each time city workers try to raze it, supporters quickly mobilize to fend them off, alerted by a subaltern keeping watch 24/7.

Its keepers say it's only growing as fast as the banyan tree, the manifestation, they say, of a sacred mythical snake that fights evil.

"The power of this blessed tree will defeat any bulldozer," said the priest, identified as Panderji, as several pedestrians handed him donations. "A few months back, they wanted to tear us down and restore the sidewalk. They're always trying something."

Many of the buildings are inspired by strong religious beliefs in a country with the world's third-largest Muslim population and where divinities of the majority Hindu religion are plaintiffs in court cases.

But with land at a premium and religious donations sizable, activists cite another reason. "Religion is good business," said a Hindustan Times editorial condemning encroachments. "Like any other business, there are legit as well as not-so-legit practitioners."

"People in India who are religious-minded see gods in the stones, in flower pots, anywhere," said Bhagwanji Raiyani, whose public-interest filing in a Mumbai court led to the razing of 1,300 illegal structures. "Unscrupulous people who don't want to work hard just put a sign up and people pray and give them money. Sometimes 'temples' then turn into telecom shops."

Although Raiyani achieved a rare victory, the battle to take back the streets is complicated by public apathy, a creaky legal system, corruption, poor land records and politicians who back encroachers for votes.

"People think twice about giving to a beggar," said Nira Punj, founder of Mumbai's Citispace civic group dedicated to protecting public spaces. "They don't to a shrine. This encroachment, it's like terror tactics."

Nor are people above using unorthodox construction to manipulate policy, frustrate rivals or divert projects.
 
Labor leader Shashi Bhushan Pandit says his neighbor in Jogta, central Bihar state, didn't want a road through his property so he built a temple on it, which worked like a charm. "The government rerouted the road," he said.

Adding to the inertia is a public tendency to believe a building's been there much longer than it has.
"It's been here 50 to 100 years," demonstrator Kamal Hassan said of the razed Noor Masjid mosque, although in fact it was only 11 years old. "They pick on Muslims more than Hindus."

Such misconceptions are easily fueled by politicians and religious leaders making political hay, said Monu Chadha, head of the neighborhood group that sued to raze the mosque.
Even when government bulldozers prevail, there's no guarantee that the land will remain temple- or mosque-free.

In 2003, Mumbai demolished 1,100 illegal shrines, temples, mosques and churches. But a survey last year discovered that 200 had reappeared and 1,500 new ones had been built.

mark.magnier@latimes.com

Anshul Rana in The Times' New Delhi Bureau contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times