Pakistan among ‘most corrupt’ countries

Pakistan among ‘most corrupt’ countries
AP
KATMANDU: South Asia is the most corrupt region of the world and governments must strengthen their anti-graft agencies to prevent political interference and protect whistleblowers, Transparency International said Wednesday.

The watchdog group found serious problems with anti-corruption efforts in Bangladesh, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

“South Asia now is the worst region in the world when it comes to corruption based on our studies,” said Srirak Plipat, the group's regional director for Asia Pacific.

All six countries have public bodies charged with stopping corruption, but “their hands are tied by political control over the staff appointments and budget,” the group said in a report.

“The lack of political will on the part of the governments to make laws work means that government action to fight corruption is largely ineffective,” the report added.

The group urged the governments of the six countries to strengthen their anti-corruption agencies and judiciary by ensuring that appointments, transfers and removal of the heads of the agencies are conducted independently.

The report also said that political interference means that the agencies are selective in conducting investigations, and in most of South Asia are powerless because they need government approval before starting a probe.

In Nepal in 2013 the chief justice of the Supreme Court was appointed prime minister, which Transparency International said blurred the line between executive and judicial powers. Khil Raj Regmi did not resign from his judicial position, although he stopped hearing cases. In Bangladesh, the government has appointed 48 judges to the Supreme Court since 2009.

Pakistan is discussing a right to information law but in Sri Lanka this is non-existent, the report said.

It said India has been making attempts to dilute its right to information law, which currently is one of the strongest in the world.

Plipat said Transparency International will monitor India's newly elected government to see if it follows its promise of cleaning up graft.

He said the Indian government should implement an Ombudsman Act that was passed by Parliament last year and also push other anti-corruption bills, including amending whistleblower laws to protect people in the private sector.

http://defence.pk/threads/pakistan-among-%E2%80%98most-corrupt%E2%80%99-countries.315200/

RAW and IB come together to fight terrorism

RAW and IB come together to fight terrorism


Putting aside turf wars, India’s external intelligence agency Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW) and internal agency Intelligence Bureau will forge a common front against terrorism. Their operational wings will work from the same office so that in case of an alert or an attack, time is not wasted in bureaucratic communication.

This move, cleared at the highest levels of the UPA government, is on the lines of the CIA-FBI joint task force in the US, MI-5 and MI-6 joint action in the UK, and Mossad-Shin Bet joint operations in Israel.

Two top intelligence sources told HT the infrastructure to house the joint RA&W and IB team would be ready in two months at the IB headquarters in Lutyens’ Delhi.

“The two units will not be merged. Instead, the joint secretary (Ops) of RA&W will sit with joint director (Ops) of IB and monitor actionable intelligence and technical inputs. Any action outside the country will be handled by RA&W, and within India by the IB along with the state police,” said a senior intelligence official requesting anonymity. “We decided to bring the two under one roof so that there is minimum time lag in counter-terror operations. Rapid action is the essence given that terrorists use the latest technologies and continue to spring surprises.”

The two teams are already informally sharing intelligence closely, and results were evident in the arrests of two key Indian Mujahideen terrorists — Pakistani Zia-ur-Rehman alias Waqas, and Bihar resident Tehseem Akhtar alias Monu on March 23. This was followed by the arrest of two Pakistani terrorists by the UP police. Footprints of joint ops by R&AW and IB have also been seen in arrests in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal.

Although the two agencies’ operatives have a history of fierce rivalry, the new joint initiative has worked because of camaraderie between R&AW chief Alok Joshi and IB chief Asif Ibrahim, both JNU students. Outgoing national security advisor Shivshankar Menon encouraged this teamwork.

RAW and IB come together to fight terrorism - Hindustan Times

The Siachen Saga

The Siachen Saga | The Diplomat

The following is an extract from a new book by long-term Diplomat contributor Nitin A. Gokhale, Beyond NJ 9842: The Siachen Saga. The book details the history of Operation Meghdoot and the fighting between India and Pakistan on the Siachen Glacier. The extract is printed here with the kind permission of the author.

In April 2012, Pakistan’s then Army Chief Ashfaq Pervez Kayani suddenly called for demilitarization of the Siachen glacier for the “development of Pakistan and environmental reasons.”

“India and Pakistan must live in peaceful coexistence as defence without development is neither viable nor acceptable,” he declared. He saw all issues dividing India and Pakistan as capable of resolution and Siachen and Sir Creek as convenient starting points, low hanging fruit to be plucked as strong confidence building measures.

This was completely out of character and a departure from Pakistan’s position on the Siachen glacier.

So what prompted the change of heart?

In fact, it was the tragic death of 130 troops of the 6 Northern Light Infantry in a massive avalanche at Gayari on April 7 that year that triggered Gen Kayani’s new thinking. After visiting the site of the accident, Gen Kayani spoke at Skardu about the need to demilitarize Siachen. He said Pakistan was not manning those treacherous heights out of choice. “The world knows why we are in Siachen,” reiterating the Pakistani position that it was India that started the dispute in 1984.

But even while announcing his desire to make peace with India on “Siachen and Sir Creek,” Gen Kayani was being economical with the truth.

The reality is Pakistani troops are nowhere near the Siachen glacier. They are deployed on the western slopes of the Saltoro ridge, far from the glacier and at much lower altitudes.

Indian positions, on the other hand, are on absolutely dominating heights on the main passes of the Saltoro ridge, Sia La and Bilafond La. As far as the Indian Army is concerned it sees no need to withdraw from the commanding heights it controls given Pakistan’s perfidy in the past, especially in Kargil when it tried to cut-off Siachen in the summer of 1999.

Three months after Gen Kayani made the offer to demilitarize Siachen, I was in Kargil, west of Siachen and at a much lower altitude along the Line of Control (LoC) with Pakistan. Every year on July 26, the Indian Army celebrates its victory here. Having reported on the area for 45 days during the 1999 conflict, I try and visit Kargil every year to participate in the function that pays tribute to the 500 plus soldiers who died fighting the Pakistanis and eventually evicting them.

But in 2012, I had one other task at hand. I wanted to formally interview for NDTV, the channel I work for, Lt Gen KT Parnaik, a highly respected general and then India’s Northern Army Commander.

The Northern Command, Indian Army’s operationally most active command, has the unique task of guarding India’s vast land borders with both China and Pakistan. Its responsibility stretches from the forbidding heights of Karakoram down to the plains of Jammu. Moreover, it has been involved in counterinsurgency operations against the infiltrating terrorists from Pakistan in the state of Jammu & Kashmir continuously for over a quarter century now. Of particular interest to me in 2012 however was Northern Command’s reaction to Gen Kayani’s rather unexpected call to try and “resolve” Siachen.

As we sat down to record the interview, I worked through the usual questions about the threat posed by terrorists, the fragile peace in the Kashmir Valley and the deployment along the LoC. But I was actually itching to seek his answer on the Siachen issue. Finally I asked him: What is it that the Indian Army is concerned about with respect to Siachen? His answer, later circulated widely, put paid to any hopes Pakistan may have had in India agreeing to demilitarize the Siachen glacier area.

“You see, to understand Siachen, I think one needs to be geographically oriented to the region. And let me put it simply, because I’m telling you without a map, that the Siachen Glacier is bounded to the west by the Saltoro Range, which is a very high range and to the east by the Karakoram Range and the Nubra River. So, per se Siachen Glacier is a sort of iced river, which flows in between them. The Saltoro Range actually provides domination of the entire area…There is a strategic implication of the Saltoro Range and the implication is you have the Pakistanis sitting in the northern areas, which we keep saying is an illegally occupied, it’s a Pakistan occupied Kashmir.

“Now out of the other areas that they have occupied, they have illegally ceded the Shaksgam Valley to the Chinese. Shaksgam Valley lies to the north of the glacier. And if Saltoro Range was held by the (Pakistanis), it practically enables them to bridge this Aksai Chin and northern areas gap, which is with China, and also exercise complete control over the Karakoram Pass. Therefore, strategically, it is an important area. And we feel, by holding these areas, we would effectively deny approaches to Kargil and Leh. Now, in security parlance, for the country it is of strategic importance. That is one reason. The second reason is that we have had a number of rounds of talks on this. A large number of solutions have been offered. One of the biggest issues that has not been resolved yet is that we insist that for anything to happen in Siachen, the Pakistanis must first accept the actual line of ground position and delineate the line along the positions that are being held by the troops today, both theirs and ours, as is, where is. They do not seem to be amenable to this sort of a thing. They continue to say that we should go back to 1971 and 1953, when this whole area was not demarcated, so you should vacate it. Don’t forget, Kargil happened because of Siachen… If you peruse their own records, which are now public, one of the major objectives of what they did in Kargil was to force us to vacate the Siachen glacier. Now if that is their intent and that is their credibility, it is up to you to judge whether we should be really vacating the glacier or not.”
My follow up question: Does the Government understand these strategic implications?


Gen Parnaik was emphatic.“See, the offer that was made by the Pakistan Army Chief, probably in the wake of the tragedy that took place in Gayari. If they find it difficult (to remain there) they are most welcome to withdraw to safe places. And let me assure you, the Indian Army has no evil designs to set across for those areas and capture those territories. This aspect is also well known to our leaders. So that is where it rests.”

In one short, swift answer, Gen Parnaik demolished the case that was sought to be built by Gen Kayani that both India and Pakistan need to withdraw from Siachen. And he was simply reiterating what successive Army chiefs and Northern Army commanders have stated.

Over the past three decades, the Indian Army, ably supported by the Indian Air Force, has mastered the treacherous mountains and has evolved a high altitude doctrine that is the envy of the world. In the process, the Indian military has shed blood, made enormous sacrifices and braved the elements. No wonder the military leadership has told the political executive time and again that it is against any withdrawal from the Saltoro ridge and Siachen glacier.

As we have seen, at the heart of the problem is the interpretation of the 1949 Karachi and 1972 Simla agreements by both sides. During both these negotiations, India and Pakistan demarcated their borders only up to Point NJ 9842. This includes the 772 km Ceasefire Line in 1949, now known as the LoC, or Line-of-Control. It was stated in the agreements that the border would run “thence north” from map grid reference NJ 9842.

The Cease-Fire Agreement was signed in Karachi by top military representatives of India and Pakistan and the UN Military Observer Group. The purpose of the Karachi meeting (July 18 to 27) was to establish “a ceasefire line in the State of J&K” in pursuance of Part I of the key UN resolution of August 13, 1948 that prescribed a ceasefire.

The Cease Fire Line was ratified by both sides. Twenty-three years later, it was revalidated as the Line of Control by the Suchetgarh Agreement of December 1972, in the wake of the Shimla Agreement between Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Both sides also agreed in the LoC the military gains made by either side in J&K in the 1971 war. Thus, in the Kargil-Siachen sector, all territorial gains went entirely to India, which acquired the Turtuk salient comprising five villages (Chalunka, Thang, Tyakshi, Pharol and Turtok) just south and west of NJ 9842. This modest but important military acquisition provided India an additional territorial bulwark against hostile cartographic or physical claims on Siachen.

While India interpreted the agreement as taking the line due north (along the ridge line, as is the international convention), leading to the northern tip of the Saltoro ridge known as Indira Col., Pakistan claims that the line should run northeast towards the Karakoram Pass which leads into Tibet.

As many officers who have served on the glacier and in the Northern Command have pointed out time and again, occupation of the Saltoro and Siachen provides a buffer to Ladakh and in military parlance, the much needed depth to important mountain passes that are the gateways to Ladakh and Kashmir.

There are however, a number of “experts” who argue that it is futile to hold on to the positions on the Saltoro ridgeline because they are important only tactically and have no strategic significance. As one Indian Army officer has written: “They are obviously unaware of the prevailing conditions in Siachen. If ever there was a tactical gain that was instrumental in providing exponential dividend to a strategic cause, this is the one.”

Through innovation, hard work and sustained effort to improve the situation, the Indian Army has established such strong, controlling position where it enjoys overwhelming operational and psychological superiority in Siachen. It would be a folly to give up the advantage.

Self-proclaimed analysts have put forward arguments in favor of demilitarizing Siachen, citing the high human and material cost that the Indian military has to pay. Let us examine the costs. Between 1984 and 2007, the Parliament was told that 884 Indian soldiers were killed and 13,022 wounded. That makes it an average of 38 dead a year and 550 plus wounded. But the figures don’t reflect the fact that since the ceasefire agreement between India and Pakistan went into effect in 2003, battle casualties are down to zero. Even the weather casualties are now down to single digits on average in a year. This is a sea change from the first two decades of the conflict when the weather and battle casualties both were high.

Financially, India has reportedly spent more than Rs 80 billion ($1.3 billion) since 1984 in Operation Meghdoot. The recurring costs today are pegged at about Rs 3.65 billion. This is no financial burden for a military that has an annual budget (2014) of Rs 2.3 trillion (or about $38 billion dollars).

Infrastructure in the Siachen sector has developed over the years. Pipelines for kerosene and water have been laid and better facilities have been organized in every sphere of activity. Therefore, the expenditure incurred now is more in the form of maintenance and regular improvements. Over the years, the improvement in living conditions, health facilities and communication have reduced the attrition rate significantly. Today, the financial and human costs of Operation Meghdoot are sustainable.

So why the fresh clamor for demilitarizing Siachen? More importantly, can it be done? Several experts have weighed in on the issue and as in every other issue concerning India and Pakistan opinion is divided right down the middle.

Demilitarization by itself is a process that consists of several logical steps: ceasefire, authentication, demarcation, withdrawal, re-deployment and verification. This concept, everyone agrees, is the best possible solution. So why is there no forward movement?

The primary cause of disconnect is the sequence of the process of demilitarization.India insists on authentication of current troops’ position as the first step. The Pakistanis want the Indian troops to withdraw to pre-1972 positions before any further discussions can take place.

Then there is the question of trust.

What if the agreement is flouted and the positions are occupied by the Pakistan Army? The level of mistrust between India and Pakistan in general and the Indian and Pakistani security forces in particular is deep-rooted and cannot be overturned so easily.

Yet there are many peaceniks who propose a unilateral withdrawal from Siachen, among them military officers who professed to be hawks while in service but who turned doves when out of it.

Several diplomats and analysts have said India must recognize Pakistan’s compulsions and offer a face-saving formula so that the agreement on Siachen does not look like a defeat for the Pakistani Army. This is utter nonsense. If Pakistan wants demilitarization of Saltoro-Siachen, it must first accept the fact that Pakistani Army troops are nowhere near the Siachen Glacier.

More pragmatic military leaders like Lt Gen Nanavatty have suggested a practical formula. He says: “India’s approach towards a final settlement should be based on demilitarization of limited and well-defined mutually agreed prescribed area.” Essential steps for this, he says begin with a political agreement followed by a formal ceasefire, delimitation, demarcation, disengagement, redeployment and verification;

The bottom line, according to Gen Nanavatty, is that any peaceful resolution of Indo-Pakistan disputes is possible only when the two countries cease to view each other as military adversaries.

Officially too, India and Pakistan continue to hold dialogues over Siachen. Between 1986 and 2012, 13 rounds of talks have been held. Twice, past reports suggest, they came close to an agreement but political considerations rather than military compulsions prevented any final breakthrough. As Gen Raghavan said a decade ago: “The assumption that demilitarization is being hampered by military obduracy is, of course, a misplaced one. The record of negotiations (between 1986 and 2003) on Siachen is evidence enough of the political problems in bringing about demilitarization.”

Not much has changed since then.

The civilian leadership in India has so far backed the military’s stand despite Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s avowed wish to make Siachen a “mountain of peace.” However, giving up a dominant military position on Siachen without iron-clad guarantees would be a fool’s errand, especially in view of the enormous sacrifices made by Indian soldiers over the past three decades.

Nitin A. Gokhale is the author of Beyond NJ 9842: The Siachen Saga.

http://defence.pk/threads/the-siachen-saga.315150/

Target is not Geo, but democracy, Dr Shabir Choudhry

Target is not Geo, but democracy, Dr Shabir Choudhry       20 May 2014

Geo and Jang Group are under attack. Apparently it looks to simple people that Geo is getting this treatment because of Dr Shaista Lodhi’s controversial TV show, which was highly objectionable. Geo Management showed its sense of responsibility- public apology, suspension of the programme and enquiry in to matter.

If there were no ulterior motives of those who are pulling strings from behind, and those who have become tools in hands of the powers that be, then this matter should have been put to rest and Geo Management should have be complimented for their timely action.

Despite public apology and other actions from the Geo Management people with ulterior motives and people with personal grudge want to punish the entire Jang and Geo network for unintentional mistake of a small team.

Another TV network, which has become a tool in hands of anti Geo and anti democracy elements also committed the same crime what Dr Shaista and her team committed. This TV channel did not even offer an apology, yet no action is taken against that channel; and no one speaks about it. Why? Is it because the men in big boots are behind this channel?

In my opinion all those channels and organisations that are stirring up this matter after the public apology are committing blasphemy by repeating that show; and have become big sinners. They are creating rifts in the society and promoting hatred and intolerance which is clearly against the teaching of Islam.

Solidarity with the army

Why people of Pakistan have to express solidarity with the army after every few years. This doesn’t happen in other civilised countries. Has the Pakistan army shown its solidarity and care with the people of Pakistan? I can give many examples where the army has only protected their interests at the cost of public welfare. Is army engaged in a war with another country that they need public support? Yes, there is a kind of civil war going on in the country, but who is responsible for that? Who created these Jihadi groups and nourished them? Who used them as strategic assets? So don’t throw everything at the doors of politicians and the civil society organisations.

Situation of the army and its image in the society is much better now when some of their touts are yelling that the army needs support, and people need to express solidarity with the army. Where were these people when army officers, including Generals and jawans were being killed by so called strategic assets; and army men were not daring to go in public in uniform. That was the time to express solidarity with the army. However, at that time these pro Taliban and pro Jihadi parties remained quiet and showed solidarity with those who were attacking the Pakistan army.

Aman ke Asha

Geo and Jang Group are under attack for promoting peace and tolerance. In view of these foot soldiers Geo has committed a crime or perhaps treachery by promoting Aman ke Asha. These people need to revisit history and learn from the practise of our beloved Prophet Mohammed PBUH who always promoted peace and tolerance. Did he not conclude a pact with the people of Makkah, called Pact of Hadeebia, which at that time, was perceived as humiliating by many?

Aman Ki Asha, in my view, is an attempt of thinking people of Pakistan and India who believe disputes could be resolved by a process of negotiations; and that use of gun only exacerbates the problems and adds to the suffering of the people. As hate promotes more hate, similarly violence generates more violence and we do not need that in South Asia. We need to resolve our disputes by talking to each other and live in peace and harmony and face challenges of the 21^st Century.

If there is peace and harmony in the region it is better for economic and social development, and people will benefit from it. However, peace and harmony might not be in the interest of those who promote extremism, violence, hatred and intolerance, as their business flourishes with the status quo where extremism and hatred has engulfing the society.

I believe Geo and Jang Group must have consulted senior and thinking people of the establishment before becoming part of the initiative Aman ki Asha, and only after a green signal from them they launched this daring and challenging project. All thinking people can see advantages of peace in the region, as it will boost trade and economic activity which will surely help the ordinary people.

It is unfortunate that anyone who challenges the writ of extremists and the establishment is branded as a traitor; and at times, labelled as a Kaffir or an agent of Jews and Hindus. This mindset must be challenged because too many people have assumed this right to issue certificates who is patriotic and who is a traitor, and who is a Muslim and who is non Muslim. Islam allows people to choose what they want to practise; and we have no right to impose our will on the society and dictate how people should worship the Almighty.

In my view some sections of the establishment do not like peace and prosperity in Pakistan and in the region; and they surely don’t want to lose their control over levers of power. Nawaz Sharif government is determined to assert the civilian control, generate economic revival and bring peace in Pakistan and in the region. That is not in the interest of some sections of the establishment, and they have activated their proxies to pressurise the government and create a situation where they can be back in the driving seat again.

So the target is not only Geo and Jang Group, the real target is democracy in Pakistan. If these proxies continue to create instability and play this game, then it can end Nawaz Sharif Government, and God forbid, with it, future of Pakistan. It is still not too late, and in the view of the above these foot soldiers of the establishment should call it a day and let democracy and civil society sort out problems in their own way.

Writer is a political analyst and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs

Email:drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com  View: www.drshabirchoudhry.blogspot.com  

India should not lay down any pre conditions for talks, Pakistan

India should not lay down any pre conditions for talks, Pakistan

NEW DELHI: Setting the terms for revival of the composite dialogue process with the Modi government, Pakistan today made it clear that India should not shy away from dealing with "contentious" issues like Jammu and Kashmir and not lay down any pre-conditions for talks. 

"Now the two democratic countries have to decide whether we will bury the hatchet or will continue to be at daggers drawn indefinitely. The two countries and the people cannot afford to move in wrong direction and to be on the wrong side of the history," Pakistan's High Commissioner to India Abdul Basit said here.

BJP spokesperson Nirmala Seetharaman said by making such remarks, Pakistan itself was putting conditions.

She also raised questions on the slow pace of trial in Pak ..
Basit said Pakistan was looking forward to a visit by Narendra Modi as Indian Prime Minister and hoped that the two countries would resolve "differences and disputes" through an early dialogue.

"We are ready to host Narendra Modi when he decides to visit Pakistan. Our Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has already extended an invitation to him," he said in an interaction with members of Press Club of India.

He said first four-five months of the new government in India will be import ..

"The next 4-5 months are important... how things move forward. But there cannot be pre-condition for any talks," he said.

Basit said Jammu and Kashmir is an important issue and government of India has to fulfil its commitment given to the world.

"It is part of the composite dialogue. We should not shy away from contentious issues. When we will deal with each of the issues, we will be able to move forward," he said.

Basit said there was a national consensus in Pakistan to have normal friendly relations with India and Islamabad was willing to engage with the new government in New Delhi.

Basit said the government in Pakistan strongly realises that for pursuing the national and regional potential, peace is essential.

Asked whether there is possibility of 'third party intervention' to resolve bilateral issues, Basit said countries like the US always encourage India and Pakistan to have dialogu ..

Asked to flag issues which are doable, the High Commissioner said all issues, including Jammu and Kashmir, Siachen, trade and cultural issue, can be discussed and all issues are doable.

Read more at:
India should not lay down any pre-conditions for talks: Pakistan - The Economic Times

WHY INDIA MUST PUT ANY OVERTURES TO PAKISTAN ON HOLD, By Vikram Sood

WHY INDIA MUST PUT ANY OVERTURES TO PAKISTAN ON HOLD 

By Vikram Sood

Every change of government in New Delhi rekindles hope in the hearts of many that peace between India and Pakistan is about to break out. It is necessary to have a reality check on this. Successive Indian prime ministers have walked down this road, offering concessions to Pakistan, only to be disappointed.

Today Pakistan may play the injured innocent and claim that it is a victim of terrorism but the reality is that Pakistan is a victim of the policies of its leadership. Having invested so much in this policy of violent interference in its neighbourhood, having raised the rhetoric so high and despite having boxed above its weight all these years, the Pakistani military and intelligence establishment is unable to change the way it thinks much less make a U-turn in its policies towards India.

It is time we accept that Pakistan will not change its policies towards India and may even become worse as it Islamises and radicalises showing signs of becoming a Sharia state.

Since Pakistan will not change its attitude it is time we also thought of different approaches. So far, gestures have been interpreted to mean appeasement by the Pakistan deep state and a vindication of their confrontationist policy. Pakistan’s DNA will not allow a change of policy, only a change of tactics. It will retain its terror option under a nuclear umbrella that today consists of 200 nuclear weapons all aimed at India and based on a close military and nuclear relationship with China.

Our policy towards Pakistan has been based on three misconceptions. One, the assumption that the civilian politicians favour a normal relationship with India but it is the army alone that is the impediment. Facts speak otherwise. It was then prime minister Zulfiqar Bhutto who said that Pakistan would make the Islamic bomb even if Pakistanis had to eat grass. It was Zulfiqar who dabbled with assisting the Islamic Afghans who had taken shelter in Pakistan having been pushed out by the Mohammad Daud Khan regime from Afghanistan.

It was his daughter, Benazir, who launched the Kashmir jihad and later propped up the Taliban. It was Nawaz Sharif who supported both the Taliban and anti-India groups, most of them fostered in Punjab, his stronghold.

Mumbai 1993 and later Kargil happened during Sharif’s terms in office. Likewise, the Mumbai attacks of November 2008 happened during Asif Ali Zardari’s presidency. There would be no significant change in the threats faced by us from Pakistan regardless of whether there was a dictator in command or an ostensibly civilian rule.

Two, if we engage Pakistan in a sustained dialogue and grant some concessions, this will strengthen the hands of Pakistan’s politicians and weaken the military’s stranglehold which is disliked by the people of Pakistan. Not quite so. Pakistanis may not be too fond of their generals as presidents but the military is seen as the only institution which is keeping the country together. Its political, economic and military’s role in Pakistan cannot be undermined or contained by any civilian dispensation.

The third flaw in this argument is the misplaced belief that we can bring about changes in the manner in which Pakistanis want to be governed. We do not have the ability to bring about political changes in Pakistan. It would be dangerous to tread into pastures where others have ventured and failed. Pakistan’s political process is an internal matter between its people and leadership.

The time has come for India to move away from its Pakistan-centric policy orientation. India and Pakistan hardly trade with each other, Pakistan will not give India transit to Afghanistan even though it stands to earn money, there are few tourists to each others’ countries, Pakistan’s hate India machinery is vocal and active, we never get to see each others’ media except for those who surf on the Internet and they no longer tolerate Indian journalists on their soil. It will not surrender its terror option as a force equaliser and India has no cure for Pakistan’s paranoia.

A foreign policy that uses hope as an instrument of policy overlooking essential national interests is bound to fail. The most important requirement for India in the next decade or at any other time, is rapid economic progress in the widest definition of the term. This will be the best guarantor for our security in the long run.

Since we cannot progress in isolation we need to engage other countries. Notable among them would be China for multiple reasons, Japan and South Korea for economic interests and Russia and Israel for both security and economic interests. Maybe early high-profile exchange of visits would set the trend.

Our relationship with China and Pakistan means we are a landlocked country to our north and west. We need to take the maritime route to Iran and through Iran to Afghanistan and to Southeast Asia.

Above all, the government needs to engage all our other immediate neighbours — Bhutan, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Nepal and the Maldives in a sustained meaningful dialogue and provide economic assistance to these countries, in our own national interest and regain space that we might have lost in recent years.

Meanwhile, given our relationship with Pakistan, we need to keep our security apparatus in a state of alert with state-of-the-art equipment. All bilateral issues with Pakistan — political, military, economic — will simply have to go on the back-burner till Pakistan decides it wants to live as a good neighbour.

In our ordinary lives too it is not compulsory to have cordial relations with our neighbours; a nodding acquaintance and staying out each other’s way is perfectly normal. So with nations.

(Vikram Sood is an Advisor to Observer Research Foundation, Delhi and a former head of RAW)

Courtesy: Rediff.com, May 15, 2014

http://www.eurasiareview.com/17052014-india-must-put-overtures-pakistan-hold-analysis/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+eurasiareview%2FVsnE+%28Eurasia+Review%29

Arif Shahid and his vision, Dr Shabir Choudhry

Arif Shahid and his vision, Dr Shabir Choudhry          17 May 2014

It was on 13 May 2013, a nationalist Kashmiri leader, Arif Shahid was callously killed outside his house in Rawalpindi, Pakistan. It was widely believed that he was terminated by the secret agencies of Pakistan because he exposed their designs on Kashmir. Arif Shahid courageously opposed religious extremists and forces that groomed terrorists, exported terrorism and religious intolerance. Because of his continued and fearless struggle he had become a symbol of resistance against Pakistani forces of occupation and secret agencies in Gilgit Baltistan and so called Azad Kashmir. To date his killers are not apprehended.

We can disagree with his politics and strategies, but no one can challenge his dedication and struggle for the fundamental rights of the people. Arif Shahid was a man with vision; and wanted to promote democratic values and fundamental human rights for all citizens of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. He believed that religion was a personal matter of individuals; and that religion must be kept out of politics. He promoted peace and strongly advocated equality for non – Muslims and other ethnic groups.

He wanted to have united and independent Jammu and Kashmir with liberal, democratic and secular ideals. He openly challenged those powers that promoted violence, terrorism, intolerance and hatred. Arif Shahid was cautioned to stop his activities; but he was persistent and dedicated man. He refused to surrender; and those who did not like what he did silenced him forever. Kashmiri nationalists believe it was a target killing.

Arif Shahid had ability to recognise those who were fake nationalists, and who were working as a ‘B team’ of Pakistan. He felt it was his duty to expose them that people could not be fooled by them. In his book, ‘Dagh Dagh Ujala’, he asserts that all Kashmiri nationalists of Azad Kashmir and Pakistan (minus JKLF Amanullah Khan, which feels comfortable making alliances with pro Pakistan parties) were part of All Parties National Alliance; and the JKLF Yasin Malik was represented by late Dr Farooq Haider. In APNA meeting held in Islamabad, Dr Farooq Haider, in his speech, ‘revealed that this is the last time nationalists of Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan were sitting together’. 1

Arif Shahid writes that he was alarmed by this revelation. ‘There must be some conspiracy going on against our unity. He knew Dr Farooq Haider had good contacts and generally he was privileged to have inside information. Few days after this public meeting Dr Farooq Haider invited Arif Shahid to his residence and told him that he had instructions from the JKLF Chairman Yasin Malik to leave the APNA, and that we cannot work together’. 2

Arif Shahid explained the importance of this alliance, APNA, and asserted that it was imperative to make APNA effective to advance the cause of united and independent Jammu and Kashmir. He said people of Gilgit Baltistan had grievances and that we all worked hard to bring them on board. During this meeting Latif Tahir was also present. Dr Farooq Haider agreed with Arif Shahid, but expressed his helplessness as he could not defy the instructions of Yasin Malik.

Realising his predicament, Arif Shahid requested Dr Farooq Haider not to issue a public statement about leaving the alliance, as it would harm the cause of an independent Jammu and Kashmir. Dr Farooq Haider kindly agreed to that. Arif Shahid highly appreciated the services of Dr Farooq Haider. However, he did not have praiseworthy words for Yasin Malik and Amanullah Khan. He says:

 ‘A few years after JKLF Yasin Malik’s departure from the APNA, Yasin Malik visited Rawalpindi, and Dr Farooq Haider invited all Kashmiri nationalists at his residence. During the meeting Yasin Malik suggested that nationalists of Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan should make an alliance. It was astonishing to hear this from Yasin Malik, as it was he who stabbed APNA in the back by ordering Dr Farooq Haider to leave the alliance’. 3

In his reply to Yasin Malik, Arif Shahid said that:

 ‘There was no need of a new alliance as APNA is already there, and it has representation from all the regions. Yasin Malik expressed his ignorance about APNA, to which he (Arif Shahid) said, if you had no knowledge of APNA then why you instructed Dr Farooq Haider to leave APNA. Yasin Malik had no reply to this and was embarrassed. Arif Shahid said you come to Pakistan, visit Pakistani cities from Rawalpindi to Karachi, but you have no time to visit Gilgit Baltistan. The discussion continued till 1am. Yasin Malik was assigned a target to destroy APNA, and formulate a compliant alliance. He failed in that. This was a second attack from Yasin Malik, and by grace of Allah both attacks failed. Our crime was that we were fighting against Islamabad’s Kashmir policy. We were not fighting a war against them. Yasin Malik is fighting for Pakistani interests in Srinagar; we are voicing against Pakistani injustice and oppression in Azad Kashmir and in Gilgit Baltistan. This is why Pakistan and their agents are against us, but they all failed. We have shown the world ugly face of Pakistan’. 4

Arif Shahid also exposed Amanullah Khan and his politics. According to Arif Shahid, Amanullah Khan felt more comfortable with pro Pakistan parties; and he did not tolerate any opposition to his policies within his party. Even on important issues, he did not like to consult his senior leaders, for example, when he:

‘Decided to form unity with Yasin Malik, he did not even consult his JKLF group’s Chairman. Up till that time he used to say Yasin Malik was a double agent of India and Pakistan; and that he was killer of Shabir Sadeeqi and his colleagues -martyrs of Hazrat Bal... Amanullah Khan did not like APNA just because his big brother – Islamabad did not like APNA. Alliance could only be run by people with tolerance and vision. Those who are intolerant cannot run any alliance. Amanullah Khan likes a solo flight...He has a track record of expelling his close colleagues from the JKLF....Amanullah Niazi discovered Amanullah Gilgiti and he transformed to Amanullah khan and there is history behind this. If it was not for his personal interests, then he should have cared for his own people in Gilgit Baltistan where people were suffering and had no leadership’  5

Referring to the position of India and Pakistan, Arif Shahid said:

‘Before we get azadi – independence from India we must get our demands accepted from Pakistan. India entered Kashmir as a result of a treaty; whereas Pakistan entered Kashmir as an aggressor. An aggressor is not liable to any rules. Maharaja’s accession to India is conditional. What is the legal status of Pakistan in Azad Kashmir and in Gilgit Baltistan’? 6

While paying tribute to Arif Shahid, Cynthia Poyton said:

‘In his long struggle he bravely challenged the Pakistani policy in Jammu and Kashmir. He opposed militancy and so called jihad.  In his view, this proxy war sponsored by the Pakistani establishment, have resulted in destruction and human loss. People of Jammu and Kashmir have lost a generation because of this sponsored militancy. I agree with Arif Shahid that gun has no role in the Kashmiri struggle. The borrowed gun has introduced culture of violence and intimidation in the State of Jammu and Kashmir and resulted in killing of thousands of innocent people’. 7

Arif Shahid is no longer with us, but his vision and clarity of thought is with us. He became a symbol of resistance against the Pakistani occupation in Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan. Many Azad Kashmiri nationalists believe that his struggle for the oppressed and victimised people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir must continue; and that we must oppose those who promote extremism, violence and religious intolerance. We must expose Pakistani government’s hypocritical stand on the Kashmir dispute and tell people that they have imperialist designs on Jammu and Kashmir.

Arif Shahid’s killers are still not arrested. Pakistani government and law enforcing agencies did not show any interest in this gruesome killing. Kashmiri nationalists demand that the Pakistani authorities:

·         Should constitute a judicial inquiry into the murder of Arif Shahid Shaheed;

·         Arrest and punish all those involved with the conspiracy and murder of Arif Shahid;

·         Immediately stop policy of harassment and intimidation in Pakistani Administered Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan;

·         Allow people of Pakistani Administered Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan to enjoy their fundamental human rights.

References

1.    Arif Shahid, ‘Dagh Dagh Ujala’ published by National Institute of Kashmir Studies, January 2013, page 138

2.    Ibid, pages 139-40

3.    Ibid, page 141

4.    Ibid, pages 141-42

5.    Ibid, pages 145-146

6.    Ibid, page 154

7.    Speech made by Cynthia Poyton during the UN Human Rights Session in Geneva in September 2013

Writer is a political analyst and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs

Email:drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com  View: www.drshabirchoudhry.blogspot.com