What's new

The case of JuD

foxbat

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
4,093
Reaction score
-7
Country
India
Location
India
Interesting to see that a UN designated Terrorist organization and a UN designated Terrorist is so popular in Pakistan. May be in a few years we will see Hafeez Saeed as the Prime Minister of Pakistan :)
===================================================================
The case of JuD | Opinion | DAWN.COM

THERE is substantive evidence to suggest that Jamaatud Dawa (JuD) is gaining ground in Pakistan. Irrespective of the causes, the rise of the group from within a relatively smaller religious sect and its ability to create an immense impact both on public and policy discourse in Pakistan is considered by its associates as a great ‘triumph’.

Having conceived its objectives in a narrow sectarian and anti-democratic perspective, the JuD is now struggling to adjust itself as an important player in the country’s religious-political landscape.

During the last one decade or so, it has launched and led many mass movements: a campaign against the Prophet’s (PBUH) images by a Danish cartoonist; countrywide protests against the Iraq war; Tehrik Hurmat-i-Rasool (in reaction to the desecration of the Quran in Guantanamo some years ago); a movement against the women’s protection bill; and the pro-Saudi Arabia campaign in the context of Riyadh’s role following the unrest in Bahrain. The group is now among the leading members of the Difaa-i-Pakistan Council (DPC).

Once the Jamaat-i-Islami (JI) had the ability to mobilise the immense mass movements and its participation in any religious and political agitation was considered the key to success but now the JuD has taken over the role. One reason could be that the JuD has built its organisational structure on the pattern of the JI. Also, the top leadership of the group has served in the JI. Is it a sign of transformation of a hard-core militant organisation into a mainstream religious political party? Is the JuD following a pattern similar to that of Hezbollah and Hamas?

It can be discerned from the recent history of radical and militant organisations that when the infrastructure of one among such organisations expanded on a large scale, the group’s stakes grew in the same system it had been opposing previously.

Contrary to this, militant groups that failed to develop their organisational infrastructure were subjected to divisions and became more violent. The JuD has succeeded over time in diversifying its infrastructure and resources, employing the strategy of social delivery programmes and exploiting contemporary religious and political issues.

At the same time, despite internal and external pressures, it has succeeded in keeping its militant network the Lashkar-i-Taiba (LeT) intact. Many militant groups in Pakistan, contemporaries of the JuD, could not diversify their ideological and physical resources and ultimately faced erosion within their organisational structures. Their breakaway factions got involved in terrorism inside the country, which forced them to limit their links with them and remain underground.

Nevertheless, the JuD is on the surface and owns a solid and stretched-out infrastructure inside Pakistan which includes more than 300 offices, mosques and madressahs. The group has set up many commercial ventures including more than 400 English-medium schools, colleges, transportation companies, residential projects and media groups and has acquired farmland on a large scale.

Its charity wing has one of the biggest fleet of ambulances in the country, seven hospitals and more than 200 health centres.

The group has the second largest charity network in Pakistan after Maymar Trust, formally known as Al-Rashid Trust. This means that the JuD cannot afford any confrontation with the state that could force it to abandon its activities in the country.

In the beginning, the JuD’s ideological discourse was built on an extremely narrow sectarian agenda of spreading hatred against the Shia and Barelvi communities, as reflected in its earlier publications. But after 9/11, it adopted a reconciliatory approach and invited opposing sects to its platform to ‘wage a joint struggle for a common cause’.

The approach worked and not only the JuD but the Ahle Hadith school of thought too gained ground in public and religious discourses. The JuD even struck roots in the Hindu-dominated districts of Sindh, where more numbers among the local population were seen to embrace Islam.

It must be a good feeling among JuD’s brothers in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states that the militant group has had a significant impact on Pakistan where these countries had been spending enormous resources on promoting their orthodox school of thought for decades, but had failed to attract the Sunni majority.Is JuD’s active participation in political rallies and membership of an alliance of political parties and individuals a sign that the group has ambitions to move towards electoral politics? Though their rejection of democracy was one of the prime objectives behind the establishment of the JuD, the group leadership appears to have changed tack.

It seems that the group has the willingness to participate in electoral politics but is concerned about the absence of an electoral support base. Nevertheless, JuD members had contested local bodies elections in their individual capacity and supported different candidates in previous general elections. The JuD’s taking part in electoral politics would be an interesting phenomenon for political scientists to see how a militant group had completed its lifecycle in Pakistan.

The JuD still believes in achieving its goal through the use of violence but it is becoming extremely cautious in its sociopolitical rhetoric. Although it has not yet abandoned ties with Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) it avoids admitting its links with it at a public level.

It may not be because of any fear of public reaction but mainly to avoid external pressure. There is a dissident voice also in the organisation that this indifferent policy towards LeT could lead towards complete detachment from it.

The assessment of JuD’s probable political transformation is only relevant if the group is considered as an independent entity with no links to and patronisation from any quarter of the establishment.

Certainly, establishments use non-state actors for their legitimate and illegitimate purposes, but non-state actors gradually become independent and it becomes difficult for the establishments to control them as it happened in the case of many militant
organisations in Pakistan which were created in Afghanistan and Kashmir but later turned against the state.


For instance, Ilyas Kashmiri, once an asset, rebelled and dealt a blow to the security forces. He was considered the mastermind behind some major attacks on security forces in Pakistan.
 
Everyone in the world is free to come and try the JuD and bring EVIDENCE that they are involved in terrorist activities.

If found guilty we will designate them as a terrorist group too. You have to acknowledge that the JuD leaders have not resisted arrest or gone into hiding. They have fought their cases in the court of law. What else do you want? Shoot them execution style without a trial?
 
Everyone in the world is free to come and try the JuD and bring EVIDENCE that they are involved in terrorist activities.

If found guilty we will designate them as a terrorist group too. You have to acknowledge that the JuD leaders have not resisted arrest or gone into hiding. They have fought their cases in the court of law. What else do you want? Shoot them execution style without a trial?

Has Pakistan been able to get them removed from the list of UN sanctioned Terror outfits/people ? If Pakistani state believes that cases against them are not true, isnt it Pakistan's duty to clear the names of its citizens from the most notorious list in the world ?

BTW, how many TTP terrorists killed by PA have been tried in Pakistani courts before being killed.. ?
 
Interesting to see that a UN designated Terrorist organization and a UN designated Terrorist is so popular in Pakistan. May be in a few years we will see Hafeez Saeed as the Prime Minister of Pakistan :)

The UN resolution also stated that Iraq had WMDs...

Being anti-India is not a crime, bring substantiated evidence implicating the JuD, and we will ban them and designate them as a terrorist organization.
 
Has Pakistan been able to get them removed from the list of UN sanctioned Terror outfits/people ? If Pakistani state believes that cases against them are not true, isnt it Pakistan's duty to clear the names of its citizens from the most notorious list in the world ?

BTW, how many TTP terrorists killed by PA have been tried in Pakistani courts before being killed.. ?

That is the responsibility of the government and governments have their own agenda. The Judiciary however determines blame based upon evidence and the evidence does not support the charge.

The only link that exists is that Hafiz Saeed the leader of JuD used to be the leader of the LeT. He says he quit the use of violence once the Pakistan government banned the LeT.

If you think he is lying about that, please prove it in court.

BTW, how many TTP terrorists killed by PA have been tried in Pakistani courts before being killed.. ?

None of the TTP terrorists killed surrendered to the security agencies to be tried in court - many terrorists are routinely tried in court too btw.

I repeat what I said initially, JuD leaders have turned themselves in. They willingly got tried, were found not guilty and then the ban was uplifted. If he would have resisted arrest, he would have been killed too.
 
It also has to be noted that the Mumbai case is still on. Pakistan is spending its resources to reign in on JuD - but one of their biggest support has come from India. We really, reaaaally want to throw Hafiz Saeed in jail.

India refused to extradite Ajmal Kasab, to give testimony in court - Pakistani courts do not lay the same weightage to video conferencing testimony as compared to in person. India refused to send Ajmal Kasab with Interpol escorts, and refused video conferencing as well. Recently a judicial panel went to India as India had invited them to come to India and take his testimony. This is highly improper but special dispensation was given and it was decided to break the deadlock by catering to such silly Indian demands... After the Pakistani team reached there - India at the last minute refused to let them meet.

So what is India doing here?

India bars Pakistan`s panel from meeting Kasab

We need to record his statement and make him say that he has not made all his statements under duress. Why is India backing out of a Pakistani team simply going into the Indian prison facilities and recording a statement, what has India to hide?
 
Funny you talk about evidence against JuD while on other hand, on this very forum itself, you have declard Modi as terrorist while he hasn't been proven guilty in any court yet.

hypocrisy running deep, as usual.
 
Funny you talk about evidence against JuD while on other hand, on this very forum itself, you have declard Modi as terrorist while he hasn't been proven guilty in any court yet.

hypocrisy running deep, as usual.

I trust our judicial system which has nailed the PM, the President and the military all at once, moreover I have not asked for Modi to be executed, only to not to be voted in - I am not planning to not vote for Hafiz Saeed either. Mind you the judicial order to barr the invited judicial team to record statement and cross examine all 4 witnesses was from the Indian court system. So you have to go back to your courts and ask them why are they aiding and defending Hafiz Saeed?

Or is it that Ajmal Kasab would claim that he gave his previous statements in duress?
 
It also has to be noted that the Mumbai case is still on. Pakistan is spending its resources to reign in on JuD - but one of their biggest support has come from India. We really, reaaaally want to throw Hafiz Saeed in jail.

India refused to extradite Ajmal Kasab, to give testimony in court - Pakistani courts do not lay the same weightage to video conferencing testimony as compared to in person. India refused to send Ajmal Kasab with Interpol escorts, and refused video conferencing as well. Recently a judicial panel went to India as India had invited them to come to India and take his testimony. This is highly improper but special dispensation was given and it was decided to break the deadlock by catering to such silly Indian demands... After the Pakistani team reached there - India at the last minute refused to let them meet.

So what is India doing here?

India bars Pakistan`s panel from meeting Kasab

We need to record his statement and make him say that he has not made all his statements under duress. Why is India backing out of a Pakistani team simply going into the Indian prison facilities and recording a statement, what has India to hide?

why the heck should we extradite Ajmal kasab? the crime happened in India..which world do u live in?

and the reason Pakistanis were not allowed to record the statement was because the reasons for their visiting to India was different..but after coming here they started making crazy demands and when Indian gov refused they started whining and trying to win some political points..but every one knows how much actually Pakistanis care about providing justice ..
 
why the heck should we extradite Ajmal kasab? the crime happened in India..which world do u live in?
But the person who is on trial now is Hafiz Saeed, not Ajmal Kasab. So if Ajmal Kasab says he took orders from Hafiz Saeed or any of the other leaders, how will you try them in court without recording Ajmal Kasab's statements?

and the reason Pakistanis were not allowed to record the statement was because the reasons for their visiting to India was different..but after coming here they started making crazy demands and when Indian gov refused they started whining and trying to win some political points..but every one knows how much actually Pakistanis care about providing justice ..

What crazy demands? It has been on TV, newspapers for the past 2 months that they want to go there and cross examine the witnesses. They were the prosecution team, they score points by making a case that should be favorable to the Indians, but Indians objected.

If they were the defence team, I would understand, but India blocked the prosecution team.
 
The UN resolution also stated that Iraq had WMDs...

Being anti-India is not a crime, bring substantiated evidence implicating the JuD, and we will ban them and designate them as a terrorist organization.

being anti-india is not crime..but supporting anti-indian activities like 26/11 or many number of attacks is....the proof provided by Indians are accepted by the world community..but hell Pakistan does not accept tht...

Also go and check videos of Hafizz sayeed..where he says jihad against India will continue..even if Pakistan gets kashmir..it will not stop until the whole of India is islamized..that is killing 800 million hindus
 
Pakistan has still gone back with video recordings of Kasab's statement by Indians. I expect the defence team to tear this down in shreds as it can be argued that there was a gun pointed at Kasab from behind the camera.

go and check videos of Hafizz sayeed..where he says jihad against India will continue..even if Pakistan gets kashmir..it will not stop until the whole of India is islamized..that is killing 800 million hindus

50% of Pakistan says that. You can arrest only those that have acted upon it.
 
What crazy demands? It has been on TV, newspapers for the past 2 months that they want to go there and cross examine the witnesses. They were the prosecution team, they score points by making a case that should be favorable to the Indians, but Indians objected.

If they were the defence team, I would understand, but India blocked the prosecution team.

This is the report from Indian news media why the Pakistani team was not allowed to cross examine any witness or Ajmal kasab

A Mumbai metropolitan magistrate's court yesterday dismissed a plea by a Pakistani judicial commission to cross-examine four witnesses in the 26/11 case.

The in-camera proceedings at the Esplanade Court saw a dispute arise over the mandate of the panel which insisted on cross-examination of the witnesses, including the magistrate who had recorded the confessional statement of Ajmal Kasab. Special Public Prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam, who had led the trial against Kasab, and was assisting the witnesses, objected to the Commission's plea and there was a "hot exchange of words" between him and the panel members, a source close to the proceedings said.

When the head of the visiting Commission and Pakistan's Special Public Prosecutor Zulfiqar Ali contended that cross-examination was legally permitted, Nikam asked him to inform the court about the arrangement mutually agreed upon by the two countries. As Ali continued to insist on cross-examination, Nikam said Indian CrPC provided for adherence to what had been agreed upon by the two countries while making such an arrangement.

The scope of their visit was to just record statements of the witness and nothing else..as was agreed in the agreement between the two countries..now if ur gov is saying otherwise in ur country then u should ask ur gov on why they are lying trough teeth..but i actually am not surprised..

India bars Pakistan's panel
 
Back
Top Bottom