Building a national consensus against insurgency, by Lt Talat Masood

Building a national consensus against insurgency

By Lt Talat Masood   Published: June 4, 2014

The political parties, while formulating their policy on dealing with the insurgency in Fata, ironically, seem to mirror the present TTP position where the Mehsud’s Sajna group is willing to engage with the government and the other Sheryar group is not. Among the political parties, the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) and the Jamaat-i-Islami are opposed to any military action. The PML-N, although it has not made it public, seems to have given its consent to the military to launch limited operations. The PPP, the ANP and the MQM, however, feel that if the TTP fails to respond to talks then military action is justified.

The PTI and others opposed to military operations argue that the government should learn from history and not repeat the same mistake that was committed by the British, the Soviets and the Americans, who failed to subjugate the tribes militarily. The parallels drawn are not valid as Pakistan is not an occupying power and the government has an obligation to protect its people. Even in Fata, which is still governed by the Frontier Crimes Regulations (FCR) and not by common law, the state retains monopoly of violence and cannot abdicate its responsibility of protecting its citizens.

Moreover, the TTP has already destroyed the entire structure of the traditional society of Fata. They have, through a well-planned strategy, murdered the Maliks by the hundreds, demolished the age-old customs of Jirga and Pukhtunwali, challenged the authority of the political administration and are forcibly trying to impose their rigid interpretation of faith in the area. Even the clergy are not spared by the TTP that differ from their concept of faith. It is, however, also true that the importance of elders had also been reduced by the presence of the army.

Those opposed to military operations perhaps, are missing the fundamental point that it is the TTP that has waged war not only against the state, but also against the people and if a military operation is undertaken, it will be to prevent them from imposing their brand of faith and governance and to re-establish the writ of the state. Moreover, proponents of dialogue continue to maintain that negotiations are the only solution to the current security situation in Fata. But it is not clear if they have any red lines. It would be unrealistic that the state remain an idle spectator and at the mercy of the other side. In fact, this would imply that if negotiations fail, the state should prefer to cede territory rather than fight to regain it.

Clearly, for any government to launch a military operation against its own people is the most difficult decision. Despite all the precautions taken in terms of ensuring accurate intelligence and use of most precise weapons, the possibility of collateral damage remains. The other sad aspect of military operations is mass displacement of people from tribal areas, creating enormous hardship and sociological problems. Apart from the backlash from the TTP, the other major factor that has prevented the launch of a major operation, is the second round of the Afghan presidential election and the absence of any assurance from the Afghan side of preventing the militants from escaping into adjoining Afghan provinces.

Probably, after weighing all options, the government seems to have decided to allow the army to undertake limited but robust operations in North Waziristan and other agencies of Fata. The main target will be the splinter TTP Sheryar group and Uzbeks, Uighurs and foreign elements that are operating under the umbrella of the TTP.

Nonetheless, the government sooner or later will have to decide on establishing its full writ in North Waziristan, which in a way has become the capital of terrorist activity. Taking military action against your own people is a difficult decision especially in a complex situation as we face now. Then there is a question of capacity as well as commitment to undertake a military operation in North Waziristan. The PTI’s reservations are also understandable as it is the front line state that has suffered the most and continues to bear the brunt. But there comes a time in the life of nations when its leadership has to bite the bullet in the long-term interest of its people. How long can Pakistan tolerate the presence of foreign militant groups operating from its soil that openly violate its sovereignty? The army has no doubt tolerated them and even at times, lived side by side with them and with some militant groups, shared its strategic and tactical objectives. But both the external and internal environment is undergoing a major change and Pakistan has to adjust to this reality.

Moreover, border management is the key to stability. To make matters worse, Afghan’s do not recognise the Durrand Line as the boundary between the two countries. If Pakistan fails to wrest control over the border then the situation would become even more fluid and chaotic. The sanctuaries in North Waziristan have become launching pads for attacking Afghan forces and government establishments and also targeting cities and military establishments within Pakistan. This has also led to Afghanistan giving refuge to militant leaders like Fazlullah and others to use their adjoining provinces for launching retaliatory attacks. This has increased Pakistan’s vulnerability both from within and from neighbouring countries. The tribes of Waziristan that are living on both sides of the border felt strongly fighting the foreign invaders, but with the withdrawal of US and Nato forces that provocation is not present now.

Moreover, no state will allow an alien ideology to be imposed on its people that are at cross-purposes with the ideals of the state and the foundations of its Constitution. In many ways, Pakistan is fighting a battle for its soul on many fronts, including the one on its Western borders. What sort of country it wants to be will ultimately depend on whether it will choose the path of modernity blending it with its proud religious ethos or prefer an inward regressive isolationism. Has our leadership grasped the intricacies of this complex dynamics?

Published in The Express Tribune, June 4^th, 2014.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.

The heavy toll of terrorism

The heavy toll of terrorism

 – JUNE 3, 2014POSTED IN: ECONOMY, HEADLINES, SECURITY

Economic losses suffered by Pakistan due to terrorism continued to pile up as the country lost another Rs701 billion ($6.9bn) during the first nine months (July-March) of 2013-14.

The country has lost Rs8264.4bn ($102.5bn), both in direct and indirect costs of incidents of terrorism, during the past 13 years of its engagement with war on terror, Economic Survey 2013-14 released on Monday said.

It was, however, important to note that the losses during the outgoing fiscal year had declined by 32.9 per cent as compared to last year. Losses during 2013-14 had scaled back to the 2007-08 in terms of dollar value. The declining trend for losses had started in 2011-12 and has continued since then.

Pakistan lost the most in 2010-11 for any single year when its losses due to terrorism were calculated to be Rs2,037bn ($23.77bn).

The impact of terrorism on the economy was measured by a finance ministry-led inter-ministerial committee comprising representatives of ministries of interior, foreign affairs, commerce and inter-provincial coordination.

The Economic Survey said that the “rise of violent extremism and increase in terrorism … disrupted Pakistan’s normal economic and trading activities, which not only resulted in higher costs of business but also created disruptions in the production cycles, resulting in significant delays in meeting the export orders around the globe. As a result, Pakistani products have gradually lost their market share to their competitors.”

This led to slowing down of economic growth, declining tax collection and loss of foreign investment.

The blame for growing extremism and terrorism in Pakistan was put on “instability and conflict” in Afghanistan.

The breakdown of the losses given by the Economic Survey showed that while all other sectors suffered less than previous years, foreign investment took the biggest hit during this period. It is estimated that the country lost foreign investment worth $3,260m during the last year as compared to $210m during the previous year.

Lost foreign investments roughly made up half of the total losses incurred by the country due to terrorism.

Losses in terms of exports ($323m), industrial output ($129.6m), and tax collection ($1,732.4m) reduced significantly over the previous year.

Lower figures quoted for the compensation paid to affectees ($13.97m) and damage to physical infrastructure (437.36m) this year was clear indication that despite some high-profile incidents, damage caused by terrorism decreased.

The Economic Survey said Pakistan “needs enormous resources to enhance productive capacity of the economy by repairing damaged infrastructure and to create a favorable investment climate”.

It said the security situation was a “key determinant” of future flow of the investment.

The survey further noted that Pakistan’s economy needs an early end to the conflict in Afghanistan.

http://tacstrat.com/content/index.php/2014/06/03/the-heavy-toll-of-terrorism/

Why Russia lifted the arms embargo on Pakistan?

Why Russia lifted the arms embargo on Pakistan?

 – JUNE 3, 2014POSTED IN: HEADLINES, POLITICS, SECURITY

Russia has just announced a hugely strategic decision that may alter the regional power matrix and bug India at a time when the just-installed Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was looking to deepen ties with Moscow.

Sergey Chemezov, head of Russian state-run technologies corporation Rostec, announced on Monday that Russia has lifted an embargo on supplying weapons and military hardware to Pakistan. He also said that Moscow is negotiating the delivery of several Mi-25 helicopter gunships to Islamabad. “The decision was taken and we are negotiating the delivery of helicopters,” the Voice of Russia quoted Chemezov as saying.

Why this move and why now?

The Russian decision is indicative of a paradigm shift in Russian foreign policy, a kind of move which one sees once in several decades.

Naturally, when a state takes such a decision it must not be without considering the pros and cons of the matter, the strategic takeaways and the possible pitfalls.

Two compelling reasons for the Russian move may well be Afghanistan and the Russia-West spat over Ukraine.

Like India and China, Russia too is waiting with bated breath the post-2014 Afghanistan as American/NATO are scheduled to pull out most of their troops from the land-locked country by this year end. The Taliban is in a resurgent mode. Everybody knows that during the Taliban rule (1996-2001), Afghanistan had become the most productive and flourishing factory of jihad in the world. Therefore, the withdrawal of American/NATO troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2014 may well turn the country into a tinder box again.

While Russia would definitely not like this scenario, it can hardly change the situation and counter the new situation with a Plan B. Pakistan’s importance would increase enormously in the post-2014 situation in Afghanistan.

Improving relations with Pakistan would give an important leverage to Russia in the post-2014 Afghanistan. If Russia and China do not want the loose canons of the Taliban to unleash themselves at them, then it is Pakistan and no one else that can make it happen.

The Russian move may be far shrewder than one can think. It may well be indicative of a China-Russia-Pakistan (CRP) axis, largely because of flawed policies of the Obama administration.

Russia and Pakistan have had a rather cold relationship, despite the latter’s sustained attempts over recent years to mend the ties. Reasons for the Russian coldness toward Pakistan are not difficult to see. It is the India factor. India clearly does not favor Russia cozying up to Pakistan and Russia could not have afforded to annoy the Indians. Why, after all, Russia should play a zero-sum game in South Asia when it is having the best of relations with India, a sworn enemy of Pakistan?

That was the argument of most Russians who opposed the very idea of needling India, the largest importer of Russian weapons. But even this defense relationship received setbacks in the past two years as Russia lost out to other competitors like Israel, the United States and Europe on several big-ticket Indian defense deals.

The India angle

Let me begin the India angle in this context with two seemingly contradictory statements.

One, the Russian decision of lifting its embargo on weapons supplies to Pakistan is a huge setback to India. Two, India and Russia will continue to do business together as both need each other immensely.

It is highly unlikely that the Russian move would have come as a complete surprise to the Indians. New Delhi has been aware of formal consultations between Russia and Pakistan in the trilateral format on Afghanistan – the third country being China.

It is quite possible that Moscow may have taken the Indians into its confidence on its upcoming policy change and put forth its strategic compulsions.

Russia and India are working very closely in the Afghan theater and have embarked on a novel understanding wherein India pays for Russian arms supplied by Russia to Afghanistan for boosting Afghan armed forces’ capabilities. Is there a possibility that the Russians have taken a sort of ‘no-objection certificate’ from the Indians for their unprecedented outreach to Pakistan?

One cannot rule out anything. Games such as these are often played on the strategic chessboards. What can be a bigger strategic chessboard than Afghanistan where all the top powers of the world are directly involved?

Moreover, one should not expect an official statement from either Moscow or New Delhi on this issue. Games such as these are often played in the back alleys, far from the media glare.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

http://tacstrat.com/content/index.php/2014/06/03/why-russia-lifted-the-arms-embargo-on-pakistan/

The new center of gravity, Sino- Russia border

The new center of gravity, Sino- Russia border

 – JUNE 3, 2014POSTED IN: ECONOMY, HEADLINES, SECURITY

Last fortnight, Russia and China entered into a 30-year contract worth $400 billion for supply of piped natural gas from Russia to China. This one deal could cause realignment of global relationships based on resources.

India, which pays high price for gas imports, too, has begun looking at this deal.

While the price at which Russia will supply gas has not been disclosed, there are reasons to believe it could be $8-9 per mmbtu, though some analysts claim it could be more than$11.

India was purchasing LNG (liquefied natural gas) from Qatar at $12 per mmBtu (million metric British thermal units) when the US was paying just $3 for the same product from the same source at the same time.
Some experts say the gas pipeline should be extended from Russia, through China to India.

Russia again
If that happens, it could bring Russia, India and China closer than ever before and shift the geopolitical centre of gravity to the East.
India was close to Russia in the 1960s and 1970s, but then came the turn of the Germans during the 1980s who became India’s largest trade partners. The subsequent two decades saw India tilting towards the US. And now it could be India’s turn to move back to Russia, and even to China.
This is what one can decipher from numbers (See table). To understand the table better, it is time to take note of a few axiomatic truths.

Axioms
First, you can choose your friends, but not neighbours. This is more true when it comes to geopolitics, as geographical neighbourhoods cannot be changed.
Second, it is therefore imperative to be friends with your neighbours, than to have festering relationships.
Third, countries have their own imperatives. One is the amount of land they have; two the population that resides there, and three the amount of water that exists within their borders.
While is easy to compute land area, it is bit difficult to count the exact number of people.

But it is difficult to compute the exact amount of water a country. The closest one can get is by mapping – using satellite imagery – the surface area of water as a percentage of land. However, this figure can be imperfect – Brazil is shown to have very little water, but it has a river flowing underground, which provides it two times the apparent water. Same is the case with China. During the rains, and when the ice on mountains melts, China’s water surface can swell to as much as 6% of its land mass. Most of the year it remains at 2%, though the latest figures shown by Wikipedia is 0.28%. But in absence of any other reliable indicator, water as a percentage of land mass is a decent starting point.
And this is where the numbers start telling their own story.

China
As it is industrialising at a rapid pace, China may need huge amount of water. It has very little water compared to either its population or land mass. So it will try and source water from somewhere else. This means it will tap into rivers that originate from within its boundaries. It has done this with the Mekong river. It could soon do this with the Brahmaputra which flows from China (http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-india-losing-water-war-1982524). It could also persuade Nepal to let it share some of the waters originating from that country. Nepal’s rivers contribute to the waters of the Ganga and the Yamuna. If these rivers lose their waters, the whole of North India could become a desert. Bangladesh would face a famine.

Russia
But there is a way out. Russia has the world’s largest water reserves compared to land mass. Russia also has the world’s largest land mass – almost twice the size of US or China. Could Russia be persuaded to share its waters with China in return for more access to India’s markets? But Russia has its own problems. It has very few people, having one of the poorest densities of population in the world. With few people, it will not be able to exploit all the wealth its land mass can offer. On the other hand, if the EU stops purchasing Russia’s gas, China would be a better bet and bigger consumer of gas than the whole of the EU.

India
India will also need this gas at this price. And it makes sense to build a gas pipeline right from Russia through China and to India. The managing director of ONGC-OVL has gone on record stating that such a move is desirable.That will reduce India’s vulnerability to Qatar and the West. Both India and China are also the largest consumers of gold, which Russia has in abundance. One more reason for India and China to forge closer links with Russia.
But does India have anything to offer to Russia? Yes, its abundant manpower, which can be used in the controlled manner (as in the Middle East) to develop Russia’s mines, its railway and telecom networks, and its highways. India’s population density is 2.6 times greater than China’s. Therefore, its need to find Indians jobs overseas is of greater strategic significance. India needs to work out a deal with Russia for this.

As for India and China, the need to work together is critical. Both share a very long border and have been friends for centuries. China is already building a railway line connecting Myanmar, through Bangladesh and India into China. It makes for India to work towards forging more linkages with all these countries. If finance is a problem, China is willing to fund it. In fact, it has already offered to invest $300 billion in India, nullifying its trade deficit with India (At $70 billion a year, China is already India’s biggest trade partner).

This does not mean that India abandon its other friends. Japan is likely to remain a major investor in India (http://www.dnaindia.com/money/report-fdi-inflows-from-japan-slowing-amid-government-s-inaction-1982757). The US and the EU are also looking at benefiting from India’s market.
But India needs to look beyond the West. Friendship involving Russia, India and China will be far more rewarding. And considering that India’s per capita PPP is 2-3 times that of China, Russia, or the US, there are reasons to believe that India’s currency will grow stronger much more rapidly. But this cannot happen if India does not work with Russia and China to create a new global order.

http://tacstrat.com/content/index.php/2014/06/03/the-new-center-of-gravity-sino-russia-border/

Watch special TV programme on Arif Shahid – who killed him and why?

Watch special TV programme on Arif Shahid – who killed him and why?

Part 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViV9M-jMZAQ

Part 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDCwqFeE8Es

Kashmir and the Question of Article 370, by Sanjay Kumar

Kashmir and the Question of Article 370, by Sanjay Kumar

The BJP may attempt to abrogate Article 370, at long last removing Kashmir’s autonomy.

India’s Narendra Modi-led government is still in its first weeks and it has already stirred up controversy. Modi’s government raised the issue of Article 370, which gives the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir a special status under the Indian constitution. It grants a degree of legislative autonomy to Kashmir, requiring national legislators in New Delhi to seek the acquiescence of Kashmir’s state legislators in implementing any new law. Newly appointed minister Jitendra Singh, a junior minister in the Prime Minister’s office , said in a statement, “We are in the process of repealing Article 370 and are in talks with the stakeholders.”

The controversial statement has created a stir. Questions are being raised about the government’s motives and the timing of this controversy. One also needs to understand why the Hindu right-wing party, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), wants this article gone.

Article 370 owes its birth to the unusual circumstances under which Jammu and Kashmir joined India in the late 1940s. The Hindu king of Kashmir, Hari Singh, refused to merge the state either with India or Pakistan after partition. He wanted to retain sovereignty, unlike the majority of the 500-plus princely states who decided to go either with India or Pakistan after partition. The Islamic Republic wanted to have claim over Kashmir on the ground that it was a Muslim majority state, thereby justifying the two nation theory. However, the popular political movement under the leadership of Sheikh Abdullah was dead opposed to any merger with its western neighbor. Instead, Abdullah favored merging with secular and democratic India.

Amidst all these claims and counterclaims, tribes from Pakistan’s North West Frontier Province (NWFP) raided Kashmir in October 1947 and the Hindu king, taken aback by this sudden aggression from across the border, approached New Delhi for help. An Instrument of Accession was signed between Kashmir and India on the condition that the state would  enjoy a “special status” and it was understood that the agreement would in no way affect the sovereignty of the state’s  princely status. New Delhi accepted the terms and conditions and Article 370 was added to the Constitution, giving Kashmir a special status. With the exception of defense, foreign affairs, and other matters specified in Instrument of Accession, India’s Parliament will have to ask the permission of the state legislative assembly to apply other laws. All political parties accepted the special clause for Kashmir in the Constituent Assembly in 1947.

The significance of the accession lies in the fact that a Muslim majority state refused to merge with Pakistan. The leader of National Conference, Sheikh Abdullah, who had been leading a popular movement against the king and advocating the merger of the state with secular India, refused to buy into the two nation theory propounded by Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan. Long before the partition took place in 1947, Abdullah had  distanced himself from Jinnah’s idea of an Islamic state and reaffirmed his faith in the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, both of whom advocated a democratic and secular India.

India’s new Hindu right-wing government has several reasons to want to abrogate Article 370.

The primary reason lies in the political narrative that evolved after the signing of the Instrument of Accession. Sheikh Abdullah became the Prime Minister of  Jammu and Kashmir and he introduced land reforms and some other measures that affected the landed Hindu community and favored the Muslim majority who had been mostly marginalized under the Hindu kingdom despite their numbers.

Professor Badri Raina, in his article titled “Kashmir Now or Never“  in Outlook magazine, writes that “Abdullah declared a maximum land ceiling of 22.75 acres, set up a Land Reforms Commission, and set about distributing surplus land thus acquired to those who actually were tillers on the soil… Most of the land then was in possession of Hindu Dogras, and most of the tillers were Muslim Kashmiris. Thus it came to be that the material loss of landholdings was sought to be converted into a communal question vide an opposition now to Article 370.”

In addition to the policy problems in Kashmir, the Indian government has also been not honest in implementing the provisions of the article. The union government over the last six decades has slowly been diluting the provisions of Article 370. It has largely left behind the commitment made at the time of Accession. On the other hand, Hindu right-wing activists have been conducting a parallel campaign for the abrogation of the article.

This double assault has had adverse effects: it has been alienating Kashmir’s Muslim majority and fueling separatist tendencies in a state which was once overwhelmingly in favor of merging with India. The abrogation of Article 370 is one of the prominent agendas of the Hindu right to expand its majoritarian agenda all over the country. With the BJP gaining an absolute majority in the parliament in the recently conducted elections, fears in the Kashmir valley have risen. The statement by the minister has further accentuated this skepticism.

Analysts say that abrogation of the Article would not serve the larger purpose of India and would dent the country’s secular and pluralistic character. ”It is time to recuperate and refurbish the covenant of the federative promise and principle, setting a uniquely outstanding example both in terms of plurality of citizenship and of political participation in opposition to totalitarian impulses,” opines Raina.

Article 370 is the bridge that connects India with Kashmir. Any attempt to annul the all-important constitutional provision would mean cutting the umbilical cord that connects pluralistic India with the only Muslim majority state in the nation. At a time when the situation in the Kashmir valley is precarious, the attempt should be to assuage the frayed tempers and win back the trust of the population who six decades ago hooked their destiny with secular India. New Delhi should try to win back that trust rather than scrap the very instrument which connects the valley with the heartland.

The argument that the article separates New Delhi from Srinagar is tendentious. On the contrary, the Article is the basis of a strong link between the two parts of India. India voted for the BJP to strengthen the core values that define the idea of India. Tampering with Article 370 would mean an assault on that syncretic tradition. It would entail not only a betrayal of the mandate, but also an abuse of history. It would legitimize fears in India that the BJP has an agenda to turn this culturally diverse nation into a majoritarian state.

http://thediplomat.com/2014/06/kashmir-and-the-question-of-article-370/

Five students expelled and 4 suspended from Poonch University AJK for demanding the accreditation of their faculty

Five students expelled and 4 suspended from Poonch University AJK for demanding the accreditation of their faculty

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information that five students have been expelled and four students have beensuspended from the faculty of Veterinary and Animal Sciences of 'the University of Poonch, RawalaKot' Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK), Pakistan, for demanding the accreditation of their faculty. From the nine expelled and suspended students eight were in their 9^th semester and about to graduate,and one female student was in her 7^thsemester. Every year the Pakistan Veterinary Medical Council (PVMC) issues circulars warning that University of Poonch, Azad Kashmir (AJK) is running illegal degree courses for the Doctor of Veterinary Medicine (DVM) degree and it has not been accredited with the PVMC. However, the University of Poonch, in contravention to the instructions of PVMC, opens admissions to the faculty every year.

More than 200 students have graduated with the DVM degree but remain jobless since their graduation. Criminal cases have been filed against the expelled and suspended students, including two female students, in the local police station and there are chances that they will be arrested in coming days.

CASE NARRATIVE:

On 9 May, the University of Poonch, Rawala Kot, Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK), Pakistan, through its Discipline Committee, expelled five students and suspended four students, including two female students, on charges of distorting the image of the university by doing negative propaganda; affecting the examination process; using bad language against the vice chancellor, registrar and other teaching staff of university; and chanting slogans against them.

The students from thefaculty of veterinary sciences were demanding the accreditation of the faculty so that their degrees could be recognised andthey could workas veterinary doctors. The university authorities have assured the students that they will get the accreditation many times, the lack of which has resulted in the unemployment of 210 graduated students.

The names of expelled students are: 1) Mr. Sufyan Riaz, son of Riaz Ahmed, 9^th Semester student of Doctor of Veterinary Medicine (DVM); 2) Mr. Mohammad Ammad Shujat, son of Shujat Ali, 9^th Semester; 3) Mr. Zeeshan Mehmood, son of Rahim Dad, 9^th Semester; 4) Mr. Abid Hussain Baqri, son of Mohammad Ehsan, 9^th Semester; and 5) Mr. Tauqir Baber, son of Malik Baber Hussain, 9^th Semester of DVM.

The suspended students for one academic session (two semesters) are: 1)Mr. Syed Iftekha, son of Altaf Hussain Shah, 9^th Semester; 2) Mr. Haad Rabbani, son of Mehmood Rabbani, 9^th Semester; 3) Miss Amina Jabeen, daughter of Mohammad Baqir, 9^thSemester; and 4) Miss Fatima Janjua, daughter of Abdul Aziz, 7^th Semester.

These students are barred from entering the university premises. They cannot join or shift to any other department or university to continue their education. The students are not only from Azad and Jammu Kashmir (AJK) but also from other provinces of Pakistan.

The students, including thosein their final semesters, remained on strike for 37 days from August-September 2013, demanding the accreditation of the faculty.The students first held their rallies and demonstrations in Rawala Kot city, AJK, for 30 days. After receiving no remedy from the government of AJK and or from the PVMC they held a long march of 110 kilometres towards Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan. First they had a sit-in outside the National Press Club, Islamabad, for five days but no one from the government responded to their demands. The striking students, more than 100, went to Kashmir House in Islamabad, where the President of AJK government, Chief Secretary of AJK, Vice Chancellor of the Rawala Kot University, Dr. Arshad, president of the Pakistan Veterinary Medical Council (PVMC), Dr. Manzoor Hussain and other officials of AJK were staying, and held a protest and sit-in outside the gate.[u1]

On the intervention of the President of AJK it was decided and announced before the protesting students that the government of AJK and the PVMC will accredit the faculty of veterinary sciences of the University of Poonch. The President also announced a grant of 50 million Pakistani Rupees to the faculty. The vice chancellor was asked to arrange a visit for experts from the PVMC to examine the facilities for the education of veterinary sciences in the faculty, which is manadatory for granting accreditation.

The government and the university authorities failed to fulfil their agreements. Criminally, the authorities from the University of Poonch swept away the findings of the team of experts from PVMC, which were made after their visit . The PVMC has said that there are no proper facilities, no proper laboratories, no standard of teaching the syllabus and no proper classrooms and field visits. The university is nonetheless charging heavy fees from the regular students and those students who got admission on the 'sponsorship' scheme.

The annual examinations were supposed to start on April 28, but the students held demonstrations. This resulted in the expulsion and suspension of the students as the punishment for demanding accreditation of their faculty and post-graduate degrees. The university authorities are also using coercive and intimidating tactics against the 210 students, particularly the female students. The authorities are making phone calls to the parents of female students to intimidate them, warning them of dire consequences.

Criminal cases were filed against the expelled and suspended students in the local police station and there are chances that they will be arrested in the coming days.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

The PVMC had already spread the word through the advertisements and official circulations to all the four provincial governments and the AJK government that jobs will not be offered to the veterinarians who have do their degree in veterinary sciences from the University of Poonch as the University is not recognized by the PVMC.

There are two methods of the admission to the veterinary faculty of Poonch University. The students are selected by the federal committee for admission to veterinary faculties. The committee nominates and selects students from every province on the basis of the population of the particular province. Regular students selected by the federal committee have to pay 25,000 Pakistani Rupees per semester whereas those who are admitted[l2] on sponsorship scheme have to pay 50,000 per semester.

The University of Poonch and the federal selection committee, knowing that the faculty is not recognized, are intentionally cheating the parents of more than 400 students.

Even the University of Poonch was accredited in the year 2012 but it has started the faculty of veterinary degree from 2008. [l3]

SUGGESTED ACTION:

Please write letters to the following authorities calling on them to immediately cancel the orders for the expulsion and suspension of nine students from the faculty of veterinary sciences of the University of Poonch and withdraw the criminal cases filed by the university authorities against the students. Legal action must be taken against the vice chancellor of the university and registrar for charging heavy fees from students. The faculty of veterinary sciences of the university must be accredited immediately from the year 2008 so that graduates can be qualified for jobs.   [u4]

The AHRC is sending a separate letter to the UN Special Rapporteur on the Question of Education calling for his intervention into this matter.