What's new

Pak must keep option of force over water row with India: JuD

This makes no sense to me. Either it is banned or it isn't banned. Are you saying that it was banned before, but the courts have overruled the decision?
Interesting conundrum - Pakistan has to comply with the UN restrictions and the government has to 'ban' the JuD, but the GoP also has to comply with the decisions of Pakistani courts, and in this case the two oppose each other.

As I said earlier, the EU had the same problem in the case discussed in that essay.

One way around could be to get nations to enact constitutional amendments that subordinates their courts to UN decisions, but not many nations would want to given up their sovereignty in such a manner.

Alternatively, if the UN terrorist designations process is more open and utilizes a judicial process that allows the accused to present a defence, then perhaps local courts would be more amenable to deferring to UN designations.
 
.
Interesting conundrum - Pakistan has to comply with the UN restrictions and the government has to 'ban' the JuD, but the GoP also has to comply with the decisions of Pakistani courts, and in this case the two oppose each other.

As I said earlier, the EU had the same problem in the case discussed in that essay.

One way around could be to get nations to enact constitutional amendments that subordinates their courts to UN decisions, but not many nations would want to given up their sovereignty in such a manner.

Alternatively, if the UN terrorist designations process is more open and utilizes a judicial process that allows the accused to present a defence, then perhaps local courts would be more amenable to deferring to UN designations.

Obviously US decision is more transparent and believable.

In pakistani courts, pakistani govt. pleads the case. Which is obviously made so weak that it could not stand in the court.

Hence the GoP can give excuse of court verdict.
 
.
Thats a strawman - the JUD has denied invovlement in the Mumbia attacks and has challenge its designation in the UN, without trial, of a terrorist organization. Courts in Pakistan have found no evidence justifying that decision, nor has India provided any credible evidence implicating Hafiz Saeed.

I think the JuD case has lots of loopholes, and unless the UN fixes its process of how it arrives at these terrorism designations, the system will remain broken.

No one buys that argument. Here's what the Telegraph of UK has to say on the matter.


Mumbai terrorist group threaten Indian 'water jihad'


Pakistani terrorists behind the Mumbai attacks have threatened to launch a fresh jihad against India over disputed water rights.

Rob Crilly, in Lahore


The Indian and Pakistani prime ministers are due to meet on Wednesday amid escalating tensions over limited water resources.

Pakistan has repeatedly accused India of breaching the terms of a 1960 treaty governing the use of shared river systems, complaining that irrigation channels on its side of the border have emptied.

The issue has now been adopted by militants in Jamaat-ud-Dawah, widely regarded as a front for Lashkar-e-Taiba, a Jihadi group fighting Indian troops in Kashmir and responsible for the November 2008 wave of gun and bomb attacks that killed at least 170 people in Mumbai.

Hafiz Saeed, the founder of Lashka-e-Taibi and head of Jamaat-ud-Dawah, threatened a water war with India during a recent TV interview.
Mumbai terrorist group threaten Indian 'water jihad' - Telegraph

If no one believes in your argument, I believe that calls for a little introspection. In any case what is the locus standi of the JuD in this matter? Why are they being allowed to threaten action or ask permission to get people to conduct operations in Indian Kashmir? Does that not weaken your position that they are not involved in "militant" activities? What kind of a "charitable organisation" does this?

Claiming that you are doing all you can against terrorism & then allowing a banned organisation to call an all party meeting attended by the party in government as well as the principal opposition where a threat is sought to be made against India is not going to help your case.
 
.
It is banned, but the Pakistani courts have declared it innocent, ...........
Pakistan is not the only nation having issues with complying with system that uses no fair means, with the parties affected having no input, and then having local courts find no cause for such bans.

Innocent of what? Can you please provide any link that you might have regarding this.
 
.
Nothing in the UNSC designations prevents the movement of HS inside Pakistan administered territory. The transit part was argued to apply to transit between nations, so this argument of yours does not hold any weight.

If transit applied to intra-Pakistan transit, then one is justified in asking how it is defined, since technically moving from your house to the neighborhood store is 'transit'. Therefore the only logical application of 'transit' is in the context of 'inter-state transit'. In any case, India can raise the issue with the UN if she thinks the 'transit clause' is being violated, and we'll see what the UN determination is.

Replicated as is from the UN site.. Travel ban in my dictionary means exactly that.. No permission to travel (within or without).. You are obviously entitled to your own interpertation..

btw, doesnt Pakistan consider so called Azad Kashmir as a seperate entity and not a part of Pakistan with a seperate constitution etc.. Doesnt that invalidate your strawman arguement of transit out of country??

About raising it with the UN, I agree.. However, next time when a Pakistani member raises the issue of India not adhering to the UNSC resolution on Kashmir, I will look to you to give the same advise to that member as well..

The above-mentioned resolutions have all been adopted under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter and require all States to take the following measures in connection with any individual or entity associated with Al-Qaida, Usama bin Laden and/or the Taliban as designated by the Committee:

freeze without delay the funds and other financial assets or economic resources of designated individuals and entities [assets freeze],
prevent the entry into or transit through their territories by designated individuals
[travel ban], and
prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale and transfer from their territories or by their nationals outside their territories, or using their flag vessels or aircraft, of arms and related materiel of all types, spare parts, and technical advice, assistance, or training related to military activities, to designated individuals and entities The above-mentioned resolutions have all been adopted under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter and require all States to take the following measures in connection with any individual or entity associated with Al-Qaida, Usama bin Laden and/or the Taliban as designated by the Committee:

freeze without delay the funds and other financial assets or economic resources of designated individuals and entities [assets freeze],
prevent the entry into or transit through their territories by designated individuals
[travel ban], and
prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale and transfer from their territories or by their nationals outside their territories, or using their flag vessels or aircraft, of arms and related materiel of all types, spare parts, and technical advice, assistance, or training related to military activities, to designated individuals and entities [arms embargo].
.





Organizations found innocent in Pakistani courts, and nothing in the UN designation prevents politicians meeting with these individuals. There was no clause on solitary confinement was there?



Free speech
And you were sermonizing about moral corruption in a few threads. And thats my point percisely. You can win a legal arguement by contesting the meaning of transit and talking about the fine print of the resolution, but at the end of the day, the fact is that a terrorist organization (as designated by Pakistan govt and UN) in Pakistan is able to call a conference to which the ruling party of the democratic govt is invited and its representatives attend as well.. The terrorist organization in the open conference asks for Pakistani govt's permission to allow Kashmiri Mujahids to go and destroy dams in India
Make what you may of that..


I can only recall one out of the last three attacking the US as having anything to do with Pakistan, and even the one that was born in Pakistan got radicalized in the US, not in Pakistan, where he led a liberal life.

Nadal Hassan was born and bred American, linked to Yemen. Christmas bomber was Nigerian, radicalized in the US. 911 attackers were Arabs, linked to OBL and Afghanistan.

The 711 bombers were all born and bred British, and two out of the three were radicalized in Britain, not in Pakistan.

That reflects poorly on West, in that Pakistanis fear discrimination and prejudice against all, based on the actions of a few.

Sure, as I said, the whole world is ganging up on Pakistan which has no fault in this whole affair. We are not fighting a legal case here.. Unfortunately, no matter how much you debunk popular belief, thats what drives the foreign policies of the countries to which the people with those beliefs belong..

About reflecting poorly on the West, tell me honestly, when an average joe Pakistani sitting in his Sub urban home in New Jersey, hears about another Pakistani origin person trying to explode a bomb in New York, who does he curse?

USA for its prejudices or people like Hafiz Saeed etc (including TTP) who you are so Vehemently defending here..??

As you contemplate the answer, do remember that the Pakistani in question can anytime leave the prejudiced shores of USA (and doesnt), but cant change the fact that he is a Pakistani (which he tries to- sometimes)..


And as I said, we are not fighting a legal case to convince a judge of one of the 2 opinions. Both of us can easily walk away from this discussion with our individual opinions intact.

After all the dastardly acts of people like Hafiz Saeed can only hurt the target, not destroy it.. Cant say this for the country that hosts such people though.
 
.
This makes no sense to me. Either it is banned or it isn't banned. Are you saying that it was banned before, but the courts have overruled the decision?

Whats funny is that Pakistan govt has also banned this organization. If Pakistan is so convinced of its courts decision, why doesnt Paksitani govt lift atleast the Pakistani ban from JuD
 
.
Whats funny is that Pakistan govt has also banned this organization. If Pakistan is so convinced of its courts decision, why doesnt Paksitani govt lift atleast the Pakistani ban from JuD

Not only that in one of my discussion with IceCold in some other thread he said that China specifically asked GOP that what they want them to do about JUD...and GOP said go ahead and support the ban....

Man sometimes my head just spin on what to believe and what not...:no:
 
.
btw.. This is what Dawn and some sane Pakistanis say about JuD

DAWN.COM | Pakistan | Jamaat-ud-Dawa easily evades ban

LAHORE: Long-haired jihadis toting automatic weapons patrolled a mosque last week as the cleric who heads the militant network blamed for the Mumbai attacks preached inside. The group's supporters collected funds in the courtyard and later marched through this eastern Pakistani city, calling for the death of those who insult Islam.


Pakistan announced a ban on Jamaat-ud-Dawa - sealing the group's offices, freezing assets and rounding up leaders - amid international outrage after the 2008 siege of the Indian financial capital. But the group has scored a few wins in court against the government and is up and running again, exposing Islamabad's unwillingness to fully crack down on militants.



The resurgence of the group could chill the first round of peace talks between Pakistan and India since the attacks.

India is insisting the negotiations Thursday focus on Pakistan's efforts to rein in groups such as Jamaat-ud-Dawa; Pakistan wants all issues, including the disputed territory of Kashmir, to be on the table.



The United States has urged the two nuclear-armed nations to resume dialogue despite Indian concerns about the Pakistan's crackdown on militants.



India, the United States and the United Nations allege Jamaat is the front group for Lashkar-e-Taiba, which they charge carried out the attacks in December 2008 that killed 166 people in Mumbai. Seven militants identified as members of Lashkar by prosecutors are currently on trial in Pakistan charged with planning and carrying out the attacks. The sole surviving alleged gunman in the attacks, Ajmal Kasab, a Pakistani with links to Lashkar, is on trial in India.



Lashkar was founded in the 1980s by Hafiz Saeed with the assistance of Pakistan's security agencies to wage war against India in the hopes of wresting the Indian portion of Kashmir away from New Delhi. The group claimed responsibility for numerous attacks there, but the government banned it in 2002 following pressure from the United States after the Sept. 11 attacks.



Saeed is now the leader of Jamaat, which claims to be focused only on charity work. It runs a large network of Islamic schools and clinics, and participates in disaster relief.


Members of Jamaat say there is no link between it and Lashkar. But even Rana Sanaullah Khan, who is the law minister in Punjab, said the two are simply different wings of the same group.



After the Mumbai siege, Saeed, a 60-year-old former Islamic studies lecturer, was placed under house arrest but was freed in June last year by the Lahore High Court, which said there was no evidence he was involved in any wrongdoing. In October, a court ruled there was no case against Saeed and found that the government had never formally prohibited Jamaat. The government has appealed to the Supreme Court.



Even before the court ruling, however, critics said Pakistan was not aggressively enforcing the ban.


Saeed has exploited the legal limbo and openly challenges the government's attempts to tamp down his group.



On the government's Kashmir Solidarity Day earlier this month, Saeed addressed supporters in Lahore who waved Lashkar flags and shouted ''Here comes Lashkar to kill the Hindus.''



''If America with the help of Nato and all its weapons could not maintain its occupation in Afghanistan, India too will not be able to hold on to Kashmir anymore,'' Saeed told the crowd.



Frustration at the impunity groups like Jamaat seem to enjoy angers some lawmakers.



''It is shocking to see how banned terrorist organisations are allowed to challenge the writ of the state,'' Sherry Rehman, a lawmaker with the ruling party, told parliament on Tuesday.


''What is the point of our innocent civilians and soldiers dying in a borderless war against such terrorists, when armed, banned outfits can hold the whole nation hostage in the heart of Punjab's provincial capital?''


Security and government officials in Lahore offered several reasons for the lack of action against Saeed and his group. They said India had presented no evidence of his involvement in the Mumbai attacks; stressed he was not involved in any of the attacks by militants that have struck Pakistan over the last year, several of them in Lahore; and they said that closing the group's schools would deprive thousands of an education and health care.



But analysts said Pakistan had strategic reasons for not acting against Jamaat.


''Pakistan is keeping these groups as a gray area of its policy, and it will continue doing so long as there are no guaranteed steps from India,'' defense analyst Hasan Askari Rizvi said, referring to moves to resolve the Kashmir dispute. ''Pakistan does not see these groups as completely undesirable if there is no progress on its issues.'' – AP
 
.
Where did the JuD advocate killing civilians and non-combatants, unlike the actions of the East Pakistani rebels sponsored by Indian in 1971 that Indians continue to glorify?

From Dawn (not Indian Media)

On the government's Kashmir Solidarity Day earlier this month, Saeed addressed supporters in Lahore who waved Lashkar flags and shouted ''Here comes Lashkar to kill the Hindus.''

And yeah sure.. Hafiz Saeed didnt say it himself.. so Pakistani courts can find him innocent..:cheers:

and btw, I did some read up on the Mukti Bahini and seriously, this arguement of East Pakistan terrorism is worse than the arguements justifying killings in Kashmir or free reign to Hafiz Saeed.

The problem with Pakistan (not the whoel country ) is that you have convinced even yourself that the whenever the world disagrees with you, it is wrong...

Do remember that while argumentum ad populum may not make something true, but every thing that most people believe is not necessarily false
 
.
Obviously US decision is more transparent and believable.
The UN decision is not more 'transparent and believable' since there is no trial or opportunity afforded the affected parties to present their own case and defend themselves.
In pakistani courts, pakistani govt. pleads the case. Which is obviously made so weak that it could not stand in the court.

Hence the GoP can give excuse of court verdict.
At least in Pakistanis courts the accused has a chance to argue their case, which does not happen in the UN, and which automatically makes the Pakistani court decision more 'transparent and believable'.
 
.
No one buys that argument. Here's what the Telegraph of UK has to say on the matter.
telling me that no one buys my argument is not the same as showing me my argument is wrong - you have not done the latter, and therefore my point about your earlier argument being a strawman remains.
If no one believes in your argument, I believe that calls for a little introspection. In any case what is the locus standi of the JuD in this matter? Why are they being allowed to threaten action or ask permission to get people to conduct operations in Indian Kashmir? Does that not weaken your position that they are not involved in "militant" activities? What kind of a "charitable organisation" does this?
So long as they are only threatening militant action against the Indian State in disputed Kashmir, they are not threatening terrorism, and so long as they are only talking, they are engaging in free speech.
Claiming that you are doing all you can against terrorism & then allowing a banned organisation to call an all party meeting attended by the party in government as well as the principal opposition where a threat is sought to be made against India is not going to help your case.
The banning issue has been addressed. Pakistani courts have thrown out government cases for keeping HS under arrest.

And as for the threats, so long as they do not act and are prevented to act (as the implication behind the original article suggests) it remains freedom of speech. Given that India has engaged in its own anti-Pakistan propaganda effort, I really don't see what is lost with allowing HS to speak its mind. Had India not done what it did and destroyed the bilateral dialog, I might see some validity to the argument that HS's comments are damaging to the relationship.
 
.
From Dawn (not Indian Media)

On the government's Kashmir Solidarity Day earlier this month, Saeed addressed supporters in Lahore who waved Lashkar flags and shouted ''Here comes Lashkar to kill the Hindus.''

And yeah sure.. Hafiz Saeed didnt say it himself.. so Pakistani courts can find him innocent..:cheers:
He didn't say it, so my point remains valid.
and btw, I did some read up on the Mukti Bahini and seriously, this arguement of East Pakistan terrorism is worse than the arguements justifying killings in Kashmir or free reign to Hafiz Saeed.

Then you have not read anything on the EP rebels other than what the Bangladeshi and Indian reports that seek to whitewash their role in the issue. Tens of thousands of West Pakistanis massacred by EP rebels constitutes terrorism, plain and simple. In any case, I have offered detailed arguments in support of the point that India supported terrorism in the insurgents vs IA thread, so lets keep it there.
The problem with Pakistan (not the whoel country ) is that you have convinced even yourself that the whenever the world disagrees with you, it is wrong...
The world is wrong when we can show that the argument made by the world has holes like swiss cheese in it.
but every thing that most people believe is not necessarily false
Nor does it make what most people believe true, especially if not backed up by credible evidence and rational arguments.
 
.
He didn't say it, so my point remains valid.
True.. Did IA themselves indulge in so called massacres in East Pakistan.. Wouldnt you then apply the same logic there??

Then you have not read anything on the EP rebels other than what the Bangladeshi and Indian reports that seek to whitewash their role in the issue. Tens of thousands of West Pakistanis massacred by EP rebels constitutes terrorism, plain and simple. In any case, I have offered detailed arguments in support of the point that India supported terrorism in the insurgents vs IA thread, so lets keep it there.
I have and in my opinion, you are wrong . I agree that Bangladesh discussion is off topic here as well as in the other thread you mentioned. Which any way is off limits for me on the principle of opposition to authoritarian bullying ;).. We will catch that up somewhere else sometime..


The world is wrong when we can show that the argument made by the world has holes like swiss cheese in it.

No one has the absolute authority to certify what is wrong and what is not. All facts are subject to interpertation. You may chose yours as the baseline but cant force the world to do the same. Each nation acts based on how it sees those facts. Case in Point, your example of Jamaat Ud Dawa...

Nor does it make what most people believe true, especially if not backed up by credible evidence and rational arguments.

Sure, but given 2 options, neither with proofs that will stand up in a court of law, I would (along with most people) go with the world opinion rather than Pakistan's, specially if the discussion is about Pakistan's (not necessarily whole population) role in terrorism since its obvious that Pakistan's opinion in this case is more suseptible to bias...
 
.
Had an Indian Oriented article appeared in a such manner, the Indian members would stream line demanding a neutral source, why then the Pakistani members are even bothering to utilize efforts to redeem the narrative. Appearing in the Indian media without the benefit of an author or reporting source, one finds the substance as good as an ash tray on a motor bike.
 
.
telling me that no one buys my argument is not the same as showing me my argument is wrong - you have not done the latter, and therefore my point about your earlier argument being a strawman remains.

So long as they are only threatening militant action against the Indian State in disputed Kashmir, they are not threatening terrorism, and so long as they are only talking, they are engaging in free speech.

The banning issue has been addressed. Pakistani courts have thrown out government cases for keeping HS under arrest.

And as for the threats, so long as they do not act and are prevented to act (as the implication behind the original article suggests) it remains freedom of speech. Given that India has engaged in its own anti-Pakistan propaganda effort, I really don't see what is lost with allowing HS to speak its mind. Had India not done what it did and destroyed the bilateral dialog, I might see some validity to the argument that HS's comments are damaging to the relationship.

Do read the part in red.. From your own constitution...

Constitution of Pakistan
---------------------------
19. Freedom of speech, etc.-Every citizen shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression, and there shall be freedom of the press, subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the glory of Islam or the integrity, security or defence of Pakistan or any part thereof, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, 1[commission of] or incitement to an offence
 
.
Back
Top Bottom