Tuesday 26 May 2020

Nehru wanted Jayaprakash Narayan as his political successor, not Indira Gandhi. RAVI VISVESVARAYA SHARADA PRASAD

Nehru wanted Jayaprakash Narayan as his political successor not Indira Gandhi
After Nehru’s death in 1964, Lal Bahadur Shastri’s instincts that neither Indira Gandhi nor JP would put a claim to prime ministership turned out to be accurate.
It is said that Jawaharlal Nehru wanted his daughter Indira Gandhi to succeed him as the prime minister. But an examination of the accounts of those who were closely associated with both father and the daughter reveals that it is nothing but just another convenient truth.
The Congress party in pre-Independence India was very concerned about succession planning, and often chose young presidents. Most presidents of the Congress party were in their forties (Nehru was 40 when he first became Congress president in 1929), and many like Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Subhas Chandra Bose and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad were in their thirties.
One of the many reasons why Nehru was chosen prime minister over Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel in 1947 was that Nehru was 58 compared to Patel who was 72, and the former was in far better health.
After Patel’s death in 1950, two key questions that would decide the future of politics in India arose: who would be number two in the cabinet? And who would succeed Nehru as prime minister?

VDO.AIhttps://a.vdo.ai/core/assets/img/mute.png

Nehru’s first choice
Nehru was keen on Jayaprakash Narayan, or JP (born 1902) to succeed him, in view of JP’s amazing organisational abilities which were exhibited during the Freedom struggle. The intellectual in Nehru admired JP’s modern education in the US.
Nehru often remarked that he was not infallible. He was also aware that many of his cabinet colleagues were too scared of him to voice their differences. In fact, Nehru had this contempt for many of his cabinet colleagues: they were men of straw who lacked the courage to frankly disagree with him. This had also been observed by Mahatma Gandhi.
After his massive victory in the 1952 Lok Sabha elections, Nehru invited JP to join his government as his deputy, to be his conscience keeper, and to counsel him whenever he felt Nehru was wrong. In fact, Nehru even proposed a merger between the Congress and JP’s Praja Socialist Party.
But JP rebuffed all of Nehru’s overtures. JP had this image of himself as being a saint and as a successor to Gandhi, far above the lure of office. Nehru interpreted this as JP’s not wanting to take responsibility for governance and administration, and he felt let down that the man he wanted to groom as his chosen successor was not willing to take on responsibility for running a difficult country.
The civil servant who recorded the minutes of meetings between Nehru and JP was Nehru’s relative, ICS officer Braj Kumar Nehru.
Braj Kumar Nehru’s aide memoire of Nehru inviting JP to join his Cabinet in 1952 says: “The Prime Minister was naturally delighted at his complete victory in the election. What he was unhappy about was the absence of an Opposition whom he could respect and who could suggest constructive alternatives. The PM told Mr Narayan that he was not all-knowing; he needed somebody to point out where he was going wrong and to suggest alternatives to achieve agreed goals. His Cabinet were all hollow pusillanimous men; whatever their inner qualms were, they did not dare give voice to their misgivings. The Prime Minister invited Mr Narayan to form such an Opposition within his Cabinet…”
“…The Prime Minister asked Mr Narayan, cajoled him, then begged him, then again tried to persuade him to perform such a role, to lead him back to the right path whenever he was about to stray. But Mr Narayan’s answer was steadfastly ‘No’…”
“…Mr Narayan was totally negative, not positive. He was totally destructive, not constructive. He would criticize, he would agitate, he would even encourage violence, but he would not suggest any positive, constructive way to achieve what he thought required to be done. He did not, in fact, know what should, in positive terms, be done….”
Nehru’s offer to JP to join his cabinet and be groomed as his successor, and of JP repeatedly declining, continued through 1952 and 1953. In JP’s Praja Socialist Party, the issue of JP and Acharya J.B. Kripalani taking up Nehru’s invitation to join his cabinet was discussed at length. Asoka Mehta was in favour of it, but Kripalani said that the party should provide support to Nehru’s government from outside and neither JP nor he himself should join Nehru’s cabinet. However, Ram Manohar Lohia and Acharya Narendra Deva were vehemently opposed to any support for Nehru at all.
My father, H.Y. Sharada Prasad, who worked with Nehru and later became one of the closest advisers and spokesperson for Indira Gandhi had written then: “JP’s persistent refusal to assume political authority is a real waste of a vast and unusual national resource….JP is a very baffling philosophical anarchist, ready to fight the aberrations of the state, but reluctant to assume any office of responsibility himself…”


Who encouraged Indira?
H.Y. Sharada Prasad mentions in The Book I won’t be Writing & Other Essays how Govind Ballabh Pant and Uchharangrai Navalshankar Dhebar exploited JP’s reluctance to join the Nehru government and rooted for Indira Gandhi to enter politics, thereby pushing their Right-wing policies by influencing her. They kept telling her that there was no one else that Nehru could rely on, and that it was her duty to assist him because everyone else would let him down, just as JP had.
G.B. Pant and U.N. Dhebar were nearing the end of their lives. Politically, they were more conservative and to the right of Nehru. They wanted to curb Nehru’s cozying up to the communists, and thought that they would be able to influence future policies if they got Indira Gandhi into politics and operated through her as a pliant facade.
G.B. Pant got Indira into various important committees of the Congress, and U.N. Dhebar, president of the party president for five successive terms from 1955 to 1959, engineered her election as his successor as president of Congress in 1959.
Nehru himself was quite equivocal about Indira Gandhi’s entry into politics. While he did not explicitly encourage her, he did not dissuade her or her backers. Nehru did publicly state that it would not be correct for her to be president of the Congress party while he was still the prime minister. But he soon also said that whenever Indira was given any responsibility, she performed brilliantly. He also remarked a few times that Indira seemed to have a flair for diplomacy and international affairs.
Nehru wanted to retire in 1958 when he turned 70. But he could not decide on a suitable successor. G.B. Pant and Maulana Azad were older than Nehru, and in poor health. V.K. Krishna Menon and Morarji Desai were detested for their obnoxious personalities, and had too many enemies. Gulzari Lal Nanda and Lal Bahadur Shastri were too mild-mannered, without the drive required, and were little known outside India’s cow belt. Jagjivan Ram had allegations of corruption against him, and was not acceptable to large parts of the nation. K. Kamaraj Nadar and Y.B. Chavan were regional leaders with no experience at the Centre.
Without Nehru’s knowledge, G.B Pant and Indira Gandhi ousted the Communist government in Kerala in 1959 by inciting riots there, and then claimed that the Communist government in Kerala could not manage the law and order situation. Nehru was absolutely livid with Indira Gandhi.
After one year as Congress president, Indira Gandhi declined to be renominated, and withdrew from politics, to concentrate on being Nehru’s official hostess. Even though she functioned as his official hostess in state functions, and ran the prime minister’s household, father and daughter barely spoke to each other for several months because of the Kerala episode.
H.Y. Sharada Prasad stated in a public lecture in Vienna in August 1984: “More than once she told me that it was Govind Ballabh Pant and U.N. Dhebar, and not her father, who had persuaded her to take an active part in the party councils, and that Pant also showed her many files. There was one corroborative piece of evidence to support her assertion that she had not foreseen that she might one day be called upon to hold the top spot. And that is, she, who took great care about her father’s papers, took none whatever about her own papers – her letters, her speeches, etc. There were no papers with her of her own months as Congress President. She was truly torn between remaining a private person and becoming a public personage”.


The power struggle
After the death of G.B. Pant in March 1961, Morarji Desai and Jagjivan Ram engaged in a power struggle to be declared number two in the cabinet. In fact, Jagjivan Ram even asked Indira Gandhi and V.K. Krishna Menon for their support. It was Nehru who had to intervene and settle the strife between Morarji Desai and Jagjivan Ram because that would have split the Congress party.
Biju Patnaik urged Nehru to make Indira Gandhi the minister for external affairs, and anoint her as his successor. But Nehru shot down this proposal saying that if he announced a successor, it would doom that person because she/he would attract too many enemies.
Nehru’s views about Morarji Desai too were not very encouraging. He knew that Morarji Desai succeeding him would be disastrous for the Congress party. While Morarji was by far the most competent administrator in the cabinet, he was detested for his rigid views, and he did not have the charisma to win elections.
In 1963, the American political journalist Putnam Welles Hangen, who had served as the Delhi correspondent of National Broadcasting Corporation since 1959, wrote a book, After Nehru, Who?, in which he listed the names of likely successors, in descending order:
1.   Morarji Desai, Finance Minister
2.   Indira Gandhi
3.   Lal Bahadur Shastri, Home Minister
4.   YB Chavan, Defence Minister
5.   Jaya Prakash Narayan
6.   SK Patil, Food and Agriculture Minister
7.   General Brij Mohan Kaul, Chief of Army Staff
8.   VK Krishna Menon, who had been dismissed as defence minister after the China war.
Nehru harshly upbraided Indira Gandhi for speaking to Hangen. An upset Indira Gandhi told Sharada Prasad: “There is no doubt at all that it is going to be Lal Bahadur Shastri”.
In early January 1964, after Nehru suffered a stroke and was incapacitated, it was Shastri who looked after the prime minister’s work. This was a clear indication that Shastri was to be Nehru’s successor. Biju Patnaik and K.D. Malaviya lobbied for Indira Gandhi to be included in the cabinet, but Nehru shot down their suggestions.
Sharada Prasad had written: “Nehru planned his succession very ingeniously through the Kamaraj plan. Morarji Desai, one of the leading claimants, always believed that the Kamaraj plan was Nehru’s plot to do him out of his due. The other leading claimant was Lal Bahadur Shastri. It would have been ideal for the nation if there had been a candidate who combined in himself the best qualities of the two. But that was not to be. Shastri and Desai were wholly different in temperament and endowments. Both were divested of office (along with a few others) under the Kamaraj plan, and asked to work for the party. The whole country had a chance to see which of the two would prove more acceptable to the Congress rank and file, to whom they would turn for settling their disputes. They turned to the affable, humble Shastri rather than to the stern and rather imperiously aloof Morarji.”


Kuldip Nayar’s version
Veteran journalist Kuldip Nayar, who also served as a press secretary to G.B. Pant and Lal Bahadur Shastri believed that Nehru always wanted Indira Gandhi to succeed him as prime minister, “even though he may have never enunciated it”. Nayar in his book On Leaders and Icons: From Jinnah to Modi has mentioned his interactions with various leaders to give his version of the theory of succession.
Nayar recounted an incident to support his claim. Shastri had once told Nayar that he wanted to go back to Allahabad. Nayar reminded Shastri that he was Nehru’s chosen successor. To this Shastri snapped that Nehru’s heart was set on his daughter, but added that even so it would not be easy for her to ascend to the prime minister’s post.
This might have just been a momentary fit of pique on part of Shastri.
In fact, some of Kuldip Nayar’s commentaries over the decades have been self-contradictory. Nayar wrote: “Kamaraj told me that Nehru had indicated his preference for Shastri as his immediate successor when he appointed him as minister without portfolio after all ministers, including Morarji, had resigned under the Kamaraj Plan”.
However, Nayar also observed that: “When Kamaraj discussed the matter of succession with Nehru, (Nehru) was deliberately vague. He (Nehru) said that the people were the best judge in a democratic polity. Yet he mentioned the names of Shastri and Indira during the discussion…As a true and loyal soldier, Kamaraj had in mind first Shastri and then Indira as the prime minister. In the election of both, Kamaraj played a key role. Morarji was rebuffed every time because Kamaraj represented mainline Congress opinion and he personally did not want Morarji”.
But, on another occasion, well after Shastri’s demise, Nayar wrote: “The truth is that he (Shastri) nursed a burning ambition to take over after Nehru. All of us who worked with him (Shastri) could see that he wanted nothing more than to become India’s next prime minister…”  In another column around the same time, Nayar said: “He (Shastri) exclaimed to me: ‘Do you think that I am so much of a saint that I do not want to become prime minister?’” These assertions of Nayar were later objected to by Shastri’s sons.


Shastri’s succession theory
Regarding the succession, Kuldip Nayar wrote: “Shastri did propose two names, Jaya Prakash Narayan and Indira Gandhi, in that order.”
Based on my interactions with senior leaders of the Congress party, Shastri had discussed three possibilities about the succession to Nehru with his confidantes in the Congress party:
1) In Shastri’s opinion, the most probable scenario was that it would come down to a contest between him and Morarji Desai, and that he would be able to defeat Morarji easily, because Morarji was widely disliked. It would be an “anyone but Morarji”, according to Shastri, and he would be the beneficiary.
2) Shastri thought that it would be unlikely that Indira Gandhi would contest against him because she would be in mourning. But in the event that she did so, it would be a close contest between them, but Shastri felt that he still held a slight edge over her, mainly because he had the support of Kamaraj.
3) Shastri stated that the best person to lead the nation was JP. He stated that if there was even the slightest indication of interest from JP, he would step aside in favour of JP at once. But Shastri felt that it was unlikely that JP would be interested at all.


How Moraji failed
After Nehru’s death on 27 May 1964, home minister Gulzari Lal Nanda was sworn in as interim prime minister. Five powerful party bosses – K. Kamaraj Nadar of Madras, Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy of Andhra Pradesh, S Nijalingappa of Mysore, S.K. Patil of Bombay, and Atulya Ghosh of Bengal, were dead set against Morarji Desai.
Kuldip Nayar played a key role in eliminating the chances of Morarji Desai. In his book, Nayar said that Morarji’s son, Kanti Desai had told him immediately after Nehru’s cremation: “You can tell Shastri that we have the overwhelming support”. Nayar immediately put out a story in the United News of India that Morarji had staked his claim even before Nehru’s ashes were cold: “…Morarji’s son Kanti is busy collating lists of possible supporters. In a deeply conservative society like India, this comes across as sacrilegious. In sharp contrast, Shastri spent his time and energy supervising Nehru’s funeral rites. People will never forget that Shastri served Nehru honestly and loyally…”
Nayar later mentioned about the impact of his report: “When my story came out, Congress MPs were disgusted by what they saw as Morarji’s crude ambition. At least 100 hitherto undecided MPs switched their support to Shastri…” Nayar added that Kamaraj personally thanked him for his role in making Shastri prime minister, and that Morarji always maintained that Nayar had destroyed his chances.
Shastri’s political instincts that neither Indira Gandhi nor JP would put in a claim were accurate. Nayar’s article ensured that Shastri was the unanimous choice.


Indira joins govt
According to N.K. Seshan, Nehru’s trusted private secretary since 1944 whom he referred to as the son he never had, Biju Patnaik and K.D. Malaviya pushed then Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri to include Indira Gandhi in his cabinet. When Shastri approached her, Indira Gandhi snapped testily that she was in mourning, and that it was not appropriate for him to ask her at that point, Seshan had told H.Y. Sharada Prasad.
Shastri stated that he would have to include one member of the Nehru family in his cabinet. If Indira would not accept, then he would offer the post to Nehru’s sister, Vijayalakshmi Pandit. Indira Gandhi and her aunt were at loggerheads since her early childhood, and Indira knew that if her aunt was in the cabinet, her life would be made miserable. It is not clear to me from N.K. Seshan’s statements whether Shastri saying that he would invite Vijayalakshmi Pandit was a bluff to get Indira to join his cabinet, or whether he genuinely intended to have Pandit in his cabinet if Indira refused.
Indira Gandhi accepted Shastri’s offer of a cabinet post. Shastri assigned her the middle-level portfolio of Information and Broadcasting. While not one of the top cabinet portfolios, it would, for the time being, satisfy her ambitions.


Shastri’s death and Indira’s arrival
Kuldip Nayar had written that in the moments just after Shastri’s demise in Tashkent: “Swaran Singh turned to me and asked, ‘Kuldip, who do you think could be the next prime minister?’ I repeated to him what Shastri had himself told me a few months earlier, ‘If I die in the next two years, my successor will be Indira Gandhi. If I survive, it will be YB Chavan’. Chavan, who was also part of our group that day, commented, ‘Kuldip, make sure you write this’….” This assertion of Nayar’s is true, and has been corroborated by my sources.
Home minister Gulzari Lal Nanda was again sworn in as interim prime minister. Morarji Desai moved quickly to publicly declare his candidature. The lure of office bit even a self-abnegating person like Nanda. According to N.K. Seshan, Nanda approached Indira Gandhi, and tactfully inquired if she was a candidate. Indira was evasive. Nanda then hinted that he would be grateful for Indira’s support to continue in office till the 1967 elections. Indira cautiously replied that she would go along with whatever the party decided. Nanda misinterpreted this as her support, and he went to Kamaraj, and asserted that he should be allowed to continue as prime minister until the 1967 elections, Seshan had told H.Y. Sharada Prasad.
But Kamaraj had already set his mind on Indira Gandhi as the person who had the charisma to defeat Morarji. The other four members of the Syndicate wanted Kamaraj himself to take over as prime minister. But Kamaraj made his now-famous statement: “No English, no Hindi. How?”, and set about gathering support for Indira.
Kamaraj asserted: “She knows all the world leaders, has travelled widely with her father, has grown up amongst the great men of the freedom movement, has a rational and modern mind, is totally free of any parochialism — state, caste or religion. She has possibly inherited her father’s scientific temper and, above all, in 1967 she can win the election”.
Morarji’s remarks–“That chit of a girl” further alienated those who held Nehru’s memory sacred, and Indira easily defeated Morarji by 355 votes to 169, to become prime minister.


Nehru wanted JP, but India got Indira
There is no convincing evidence that Nehru positioned Indira Gandhi to succeed him as prime minister, other than a couple of stray remarks like ‘she possessed a flair for diplomacy’. She certainly received excellent grounding while she served as his official hostess, observing national leaders and world statesmen at close quarters. But she was not privy to cabinet papers or government files, and did not receive intelligence or military briefings. During my discussions with him, Kuldip Nayar was not able to provide me any concrete evidence of Nehru actively promoting his daughter. Former finance minister T.T. Krishnamachari had told my father H.Y. Sharada Prasad that the maximum all Nehru hoped for Indira was that she would be minister of state for external affairs in Shastri’s council of ministers.
If JP had accepted Nehru’s pleas to join his cabinet and succeed him as prime minister, the history of India would have been very different.
The only person who probably captured the succession story right was cartoonist K. Shankar Pillai. His cartoon published in Shankar’s Weekly depicted a marathon race, with the winners being Lal Bahadur Shastri (1964), followed by Indira Gandhi (1966) and Morarji Desai (1977), with all the other candidates collapsing on the race track.
Ravi Visvesvaraya Sharada Prasad is an alumnus of Carnegie Mellon and IIT Kanpur, and a New Delhi-based technology and security consultant. Views are personal.

Pakistan Discovers the High Cost of Chinese Investment, by Hussain Haqqani

Pakistan Discovers the High Cost of Chinese Investment, by Hussain Haqqani 
A new report sheds light on the true costs of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor for Pakistan.
May 18, 2020

Pakistan’s desire to maintain strategic relations with China has resulted in the $62 billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a set of infrastructure projects, being mired in insufficient transparency.
But a Committee formed by Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan to examine the causes for the high cost of electricity to Pakistani consumers has lifted the lid on corruption involving Chinese private power producers in Pakistan.
The report reveals that the Huaneng Shandong Ruyi (Pak) Energy (HSR) or the Sahiwal and the Port Qasim Electric Power Company Limited (PQEPCL) coal plants under CPEC inflated their set-up costs.
For Pakistan’s citizens, who are always told how China is their most reliable friend in the world, it was a shock to discover that China does business mercilessly and unscrupulously.
Successive civilian governments and Pakistan’s military have looked upon China as their principal backer against India.
China’s consistent strategic support, including help with Pakistan’s nuclear program, is often held out by Pakistan’s military establishment favorably in contrast with the more conditional Pakistani alliance with the United States.
But it seems now that China is not in Pakistan to help its people but rather as a predatory economic actor.
The 278-page report by the “Committee for Power Sector Audit, Circular Debt Reservation, and Future RoadMap” listed malpractices to the tune of 100 billion Pakistani rupees ($625 million) in the independent power generating sector, with at least a third of it relating to Chinese projects.
ADVERTISEMENT
Given the close ties between CPEC and the all-powerful Pakistan military — the CPEC Authority is currently chaired by Lt. General Asim Saleem Bajwa, who is also the Prime Minister’s Special Assistant on Information and Broadcasting — the Committee treaded softly in relation to the Chinese projects.
According to the committee’s report, “excess set-up costs of Rs. 32.46 billion (approximately $204 million) was allowed to the two coal-based [Chinese] plants due to misrepresentation by sponsors regarding [deductions for] the ‘Interest During Construction’ (IDC) as well as non-consideration of earlier completion of plants.”
The interest deduction was apparently allowed for 48 months whereas the plants were actually completed within 27-29 months leading to entitlement of an excess Return on Equity (RoE) of $27.4 million annually over the entire project life of 30 years in the case of the Sahiwal plant.
The estimated excess payment, keeping in mind the 6 percent annual rupee depreciation against the dollar, works out to a whopping Rs. 291.04 billion (approximately $1.8 billion).
The Chinese company HSR claimed IDC based on a long-term loan at the rate of LIBOR +4.5 percent for the length of the entire construction period, even though it borrowed no money during the first year of construction and used only short-term loans at substantially lower interest rates during the second year.
The magnitude of profiteering by the Chinese companies is incomprehensible. The two projects examined by the Pakistani experts’ Committee were worth $3.8 billion at the time of their launch. The Committee found over­payments of Rs. 483.64 billion, which amounts to $3 billion at current rates of exchange.
This includes overpayment of Rs. 376.71 billion (approximately $2.3 billion) to HSR and Rs. 106.93 billion (approximately $672 million) to PQEPCL on account of excess set-up cost, excess return due to excess set-up cost in 30 years, and excess return due to miscalculation in Internal Rate of Return (IRR).
In its report, the Committee recommended that Rs. 32.46 billion (approximately $204 million) be deducted from the project cost of PQEPCL and HSR; the return payment formula be corrected to reflect actual construction time; and Tariff of PQEPCL and HSR be adjusted accordingly.
Under the current formula, in two years of operation, HSR has already recovered 71.18 percent of its original equity invested whereas PQEPCL has recovered 32.46 percent of its original equity in the first year of operation.
This is over and above the profits that the companies would have made without subterfuge. Imagine the return the Chinese will generate on the $62 billion CPEC projects. These numbers are way too large to have been missed as oversight or malfeasance of individuals within the companies and their Pakistani counterparts.
ADVERTISEMENT
The experience of the Sri Lankan and Maldives governments suggests that these overpayments are generated with the complicity of leaders in the Pakistan government and the loot shared by all parties.
Pakistan’s economy has been teetering on the verge of bankruptcy for some time and the COVID-19 pandemic has made the situation even worse.
Instead of reforming their country’s policies, Pakistan’s leaders, once again, sought debt restructuring and waivers on account of the pandemic, just as they previously sought international assistance  as a reward for fighting terrorism.
But expecting the international community to repeatedly bail Pakistan out from one economic crisis after the other is unrealistic. Massive military expenditure, deep rooted corruption, and lack of accountability are at the heart of Pakistan’s perennial and ever widening gulf between revenue and expenditure.
Now, it seems, Chinese investments have become a new liability. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has been pushing Pakistan’s officials to raise taxes and power tariffs, effectively asking the Pakistani public to foot the bill for China’s rapacious practices.
The United States and Western financial institutions should not help Pakistan’s ruling elites in their own and China’s predatory behavior. The people of Pakistan deserve better.
Husain Haqqani, director for South and Central Asia at the Hudson Institute, was Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States from 2008 to 2011.

Wednesday 20 May 2020

The fast pace of dual - colonisation of Gilgit-Baltistan

The fast pace of dual - colonisation of Gilgit-Baltistan
By Dr Amjad Ayub Mirza Glasgow [Scotland], May 18 (ANI):
Pakistan occupied Gilgit-Baltistan (PoGB) is undergoing unconstitutional and illegal political and economic enslavement under the guise of political sovereignty and economic development.
On May 15, the president of Pakistan Arif Alvi has finally signed the 2020 Amendment Order which modifies Article 56 (Section 5) extending the jurisdiction of the Election Act of Pakistan to PoGB permitting it to conduct a general election and set up an interim government in the occupied territory.
There was no such clause in the previous Gilgit-Baltistan Order 2018 that would allow the creation of an interim government prior to a general election in GB.
The tenure of the current Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) government will come to an end on June 26.
Pakistan has no legal authority to directly interfere in PoGB. According to United Nations resolutions, Gilgit-Baltistan is declared a disputed area and it has asked Pakistan to withdraw its troops from the region.
The decision of the government of Pakistan to set up an interim government in PoGB and to conduct general elections under the guidelines of the Election Commission of Pakistan is a serious breach of the UN resolution and therefore must be challenged by Indian representative at the United Nations.
On May 13, China's state-owned Construction Company signed a deal with Frontier Works Organisation, the commercial arm of the Pakistan army, to start the construction of the Diamer-Bhasha dam on River Indus.
According to the figures released the total cost of the dam will be Rs 442 billion (approximately 280 billion Indian rupees). It is expected to be completed by 2028 and will produce 4500 megawatts of electricity.
The project is being funded by public sector development funds and commercial loans.
China has a stake of a whopping 70 per cent and Pakistan a meagre 30 per cent. Details of the interest rates at which commercial loans will be obtained have not been revealed and a slight fluctuation in the interest rate could send the construction cost through the roof.
Again, Pakistan has no right to build a dam on PoGB soil, which is actually Indian Territory under the illegal occupation of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
The construction of Diamer-Bhasha Dam will cause enormous environmental destruction including the devastation of the city of Chillas. Furthermore, it will deprive the agricultural lands in Sindh, in Southern Pakistan, of the much-needed irrigation water causing thousands to starve to death due to famine.
On May 15, the Awami Action Committee (AWC), a social rights campaign group, warned that any attempt to introduce the Land Reform Act in PoGB will not be acceptable.
In an interview given on the basis of anonymity, a senior official working in the planning department in Islamabad told this scribe that a new Land Reform Bill is expected to be presented to the PoGB assembly for approval probably before the assembly is dissolved on June 26.
He said that if the Land Reform Bill is passed and becomes an Act then there will be no obstacle in the way of Pakistani State and its military to grab as many mineral-rich mountains, forests land, pastures and barren as well as fertile lands of POGB as they please.
He warned that such an Act would deprive every PoGB citizen of any land rights, as the State of Pakistan will procure them. Furthermore, it will propose to replace the name of Khalsa Sarkar with Government Lands Commission or Pakistan Government Lands Department. Thus giving an impression that the century-old Dogra legacy that protected the land rights of the indigenous people is finally over.
The official said that all barren land would then be procured for administrative and military purposes.
The lands rich in mineral resources and precious stone will be brought under the legal ownership of Pakistan mining and industry department and then could be leased out to private contractors (mostly military and big bureaucrats). He disclosed that thousands of acres of land are to be acquired by the government and sold to private builders who are anxious to build housing colonies for the rich.
The land alongside Karakorum highway will also be procured by the state only to be transferred to the private sector for exploiting it to make mega-profits. The official said that thousands of acres of land would also be grabbed to build Defence Housing Societies and corporate hotels depriving the local population of any chance to own a house.
Plans to upgrade Skardu airport is also now underway and this has raised a few eyebrows. What could be the real purpose of such an upgrade? Most likely it will serve a dual purpose as a commercial airport as well as a military base for China to guarantee protection for the uninterrupted construction of the China Pakistan Economic Corridor and related projects, but the true nature of such an exercise could well be to target India.
Today the people of PoGB live under the dual colonised terror of Pakistan and China. For how long are these mountain people to suffer? Let us never forget that the people of PoGB and PoJK live in Indian territories that have been illegally occupied through a war of aggression waged by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
[Disclaimer: Dr Amjad Ayub Mirza is an author and human rights activist from Mirpur in PoJK. He currently lives in exile in UK.] (ANI)

Monday 18 May 2020

Is CPEC Economic Corridor or a Strategic Game Plan? Dr Shabir Choudhry

Is CPEC Economic Corridor or a Strategic Game Plan? Dr Shabir Choudhry


Pakistani state, intelligence services, some Pakistani leaders and blind followers of leaders are presenting the China Pakistan Economic Corridor as a holy cow which must be respected if not worshiped. No one is allowed to criticise or oppose the CPEC. Those who dare to criticise it are suffering. Some are facing sedition charges and others were abducted, punished and dumped. Some others are threatened, harassed and intimidated. Our opposition to the CPEC is not because of economic development, but because of its hidden agenda; and how it will affect geo politics and environment of the entire region. Moreover, how it will damage Pakistan and its economy, culture and Islamic ethos.

Thursday 14 May 2020

Why 22 October matters in history of Jammu and Kashmir, Dr Shabir Choudhry

Why 22 October matters in history of Jammu and Kashmir, Dr Shabir Choudhry
Pakistani backed Tribal attack root cause of our problems.

'Liberation Struggle, Jihad or a Proxy War', Dr Shabir Choudhry

'Liberation Struggle, Jihad or a Proxy War', Dr Shabir Choudhry

New round of militancy in Kashmir started in July 1988. Some people call it ‘Liberation struggle’, but others call it Jihad. Some others call it a proxy war. This is also called terrorism. No matter what you call the on- going militancy, it has caused enormous problems for people of Jammu and Kashmir, especially people of the Kashmir Valley; and it has resulted in death of tens of thousands of people, imprisonment, rapes, custodial deaths, kidnappings, destruction of property and other forms of human rights violations. 

Wednesday 13 May 2020

Was Sheikh Abdullah a hero or a villain? Who decides that, Pakistan or people of Jammu and Kashmir?

Was Sheikh Abdullah a hero or a villain? Who decides that, Pakistan or people of Jammu and Kashmir?

https://www.academia.edu/43029022/Sheikh_Abdullah_Kashmiri_hero_or_villain

Tuesday 12 May 2020

Read PDF copy of my book, 'Why Arif Shahid was killed.'

Read PDF copy of my book, 'Why Arif Shahid was killed.'

This book was banned by Pakistan, and created enormous problems for all those who had anything to do with publication of this book.

https://www.academia.edu/43026446/Why_Arif_Shahid_was_killed_Pakistani_attempts_to_silence_dissent_exposed

Monday 11 May 2020

A letter to Labour Party Leader Keir Starmer on Jammu and Kashmir dispute.

A letter to Labour Party Leader Keir Starmer on Jammu and Kashmir dispute.               
United  Kashmir  People's National Party(UKPNP)

Date:   10 May 2020                                                              

Dear Keir Starmer MP
Leader of the Opposition
House of Commons
London SW1A OAA

Dear Keir Starmer

Re: Jammu and Kashmir dispute

I am a British citizen, and have lived here peacefully since 1966; and strongly wish that peace and stability prevails in Britain that we can all live here peacefully.

On behalf of United Kashmir Peoples National Party, which strongly believes in democratic, liberal and secular ideals; and have actively advanced a peaceful solution of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute, I want to make the following points.

Please note that Jammu and Kashmir dispute is not a territorial dispute between India and Pakistan.

Whereas India and Pakistan are party to the Jammu and Kashmir  dispute, we people of Jammu and Kashmir are the principal party – a party which has continued to suffer since October 1947 on both sides of the divide.

In your letter to Muslim Council of Britain, dated 08 May 2020, you stated:

‘Our position on Kashmir has not changed, we support and recognise previous UN resolutions on the right of Kashmir people but maintain that if we are to find a lasting settlement to end this conflict, that can only be achieved if India and Pakistan working together, with the people of Kashmir.’

May I remind you that the UN Security Resolution of 13 August 1948 stated:
A. (1) ‘As the presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation since it was represented by the Government of Pakistan before the Security Council, the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops from that State.

(2) The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavour to secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistan nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting.’

Pakistan to date has not withdrawn their troops from the territories that do not belong to Pakistan, but continues to send ‘Jihadi warriors’ to commit acts of violence and terrorism on the other side of the divide.

In view of this bitter fact, how relevant are the UN Resolutions, especially when both India and Pakistan have agreed in the Simla Agreement of 1972, that they will resolve the dispute bilaterally.

There seems to be no role for the divided people of Jammu and Kashmir. It is our homeland which is forcibly divided and we must have a final say to determine future status of our motherland.

I hope the Labour Party under your leadership will play its role in empowering people of Jammu and Kashmir, and in this regard, the Pakistani withdrawal is prerequisite. Only after that, appropriate arrangements could be made where people of Jammu and Kashmir can determine future status of Jammu and Kashmir.

Also, I hope that the Labour Party, under your leadership, will ensure that Members of Parliament do not succumb to pressure of those who promote extremism, intolerance and religious hatred; and will discharge their duties impartially by taking views of all communities in to consideration.

It is sad to note that some Members of Parliament , while dealing with Jammu and Kashmir dispute, behave in a manner as if they were spokespersons of Pakistan. This attitude not only damages the standing of the Labour Party, but also harms the Jammu and Kashmir dispute, as they try to make it a religious dispute.

While promoting peace and stability in South Asia, we must ensure that there is peace and harmony in Britain, and no one should be permitted to stir up religious and ethnic discord.

We wish to meet you or someone else who deals with matters of South Asia that we can discuss some of the issues mentioned above.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Your sincerely



Dr Shabir Choudhry
President Foreign Affairs Committee of UKPNP.
Email: drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com      Tel:07790942471