Chi –Pak’s GB Googly - deft move
by Xi
By Lt Gen Prakash Katoch 11/01/16 World Affairs Journal
When Americans coined “Af-Pak”, both
territories being overseen by US CENTCOM, perhaps there was also the déjà vu of
the boundaries changing between the two unofficially or officially. Given those
parameters, it would be appropriate to term China and Pakistan as ‘Chi-Pak’,
more so as former Pakistani army officer Agha H Amin predicted in 2012,“……Pakistani
politicians will remain the puppets of the military; terrorism will remain a tool of foreign policy
while the Pakistani military runs the Pakistani state under a facade of PPP or
PML or Tehrik-i-Insaaf….. There is no doubt that Pakistan will be a semi
autonomous Chinese province by 2030 or so… Pakistani Baluchistan by 2030 would
be a completely Chinese run show…”.
Following Pakistan’s
terror strike on the Pathankot IAF base, much noise has been made by Pakistan
about condemning terrorism but Nawaz Sharif asking for more proof indicates the
shape of things to come – that the so called investigations will get bogged
down because of insufficient proof under the Pakistani legal process, as has
happened in case of punishing the perpetrators of the Mumbai 26/11 terror
attacks. At best some peripheral raids would be conducted with much fanfare
while the perpetrators of the Pathankot raid are housed, wined and dined under
ISI protection. While journalists in Pakistan who dare to expose the
military-terrorist links are bumped off periodically, the judiciary too stays
in line for obvious reasons. But that is not all the response post the
Pathankot attack with India content that “ball is now in Pakistan’s court”.
Pakistani media has
now reported that Pakistan is considering upgrading the constitutional status
of its northern Gilgit-Baltistan (GB) region, part of the erstwhile State of
J&K legally ceded to India at the time of Partition, in a bid to provide
legal cover the $46 billion Chinese investment into the China-Pak Economic
Corridor (CPEC). The proposal would see the region being mentioned by name for
the first time in Pakistan’s constitution, bringing it one step closer to being
fully absorbed as an additional province of Pakistan. Quoting a Pakistani official
speaking on conditions of anonymity, the report says, “China cannot afford to
invest billions of dollars on a road that passes through a disputed territory claimed
both by India and Pakistan.”
More significantly,
according to Pakistani analyst Ayesha Siddiqa, the move could also signal
Islamabad’s desire to end the Kashmir conflict by formally absorbing the
territory it controls — and, by extension, recognizing New Delhi’s claims to parts of the region it controls, such as the Kashmir valley. “If we
begin to absorb it so can India. It legitimizes their absorption of the
Valley,” she said.
The timing of the above report indicates that
perhaps there is a larger Chi-Pak game-plan and the Pathankot terror strike too
perhaps was linked to it – orchestrated by the Pakistani military (as viewed by
Bruce Riddell) on behest of China under President Xi Jinping’s “robust foreign
policy”. At this juncture, one needs to look
back to see the sequence of events that preceded the Pathankot strike and the
surprise announcement of formalizing integration of Gilgit-Baltistan into
Pakistan; summarized as under:
·
In 1963, Pakistan gifts Shaksgam Valley to
Pakistan. China says it will negotiate with whoever the area belongs to once
the Kashmir issue is resolved.
·
In 1964, the China-Pakistan sub-conventional nexus
is formed with Chou-en-Lai advising Ayub Khan to prepare for prolonged war with
India and raise a militia to fight behind enemy lines.
·
In 2004, following ceasefire with India, Pakistan
moves Sunni terrorist camps into Gilgit-Baltistan, experiments with mixing
blood that doesn’t work following which institutionalized killings of Shias
through proxies begins. Presently, the Shia population in Gilgit-Baltistan has
already been reduced from 70% to 50%.
·
In 2005, China for the
first time lays claim to entire Arunachal Pradesh as “South Tibet”, her earlier
claim confined to Tawang Plateau.
·
In August 2010, New
York Times reports, “The entire Pakistan-occupied western portion of Kashmir
stretching from Gilgit in the north to Azad (Free) Kashmir in the south is
closed to the world, in contrast to the media access that India permits in the
eastern part, where it is combating a Pakistan-backed insurgency. But
reports from a variety of foreign intelligence sources, Pakistani journalists
and Pakistani human rights workers reveal two important new developments in
Gilgit-Baltistan: a
simmering rebellion against Pakistani rule and the influx of an estimated 7,000
to 11,000 soldiers of the People’s Liberation Army.”
·
This was a time when China was objecting to ONGC
Videsh assisting Vietnam in oil exploration on grounds of disputed waters while
she sent troops into POK without reference to India, later saying China was
undertaking
only some
development projects like hydel works.
·
On September 2, 2010, report in the Economic Times
titled ‘China calls PoK ‘northern Pakistan’, J&K is ‘India-controlled
Kashmir’, says China denied it had 11,000 troops in Gilgit-Baltistan region but
referred it as “India Controlled Kashmir”.
·
Intelligence reports
emerge that China is digging 22 tunnels in Gilgit-Baltistan for deployment of
missiles, local owners of these lands are barred from going to the area.
·
In 2011, China’s CCTV
starts showing map of India minus J&K and Arunachal Pradesh. India lodges
official protest but CCTV continues to show it during 2011 even after the
Indian protest.
·
In 2015, Pakistani
military courts come down ruthlessly on dissidence in Gilgit-Baltistan and
Balochistan. Killings and executions with or without legal procedure are
unleashed.
·
In 2015, China blocked
India’s move in the UN for action against Pakistan for the release of 26/11
mastermind Zaki Ur Rehman Lakhvi from jail. The UN Sanctions Committee, which
met at India’s request, was to seek a clarification from Pakistan on Lakhvi’s
release in the 26/11 trial but China blocked the move on grounds that India did
not provide sufficient information. Lakhvi’s release was flashed over the
international media and he was rearrested after vehement protests by India, so
what proof is
China talking about?
·
In May 2015 CCCTV again shows map of India minus
J&K and Arunachal Pradesh during visit of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
·
On 25 November 2015, a
Conference on ‘China in Pakistan: Growing Human Rights Concerns’ was jointly
hosted by the International Human Rights Defenders and Members of the European
Parliament in the European Parliament in Strasbourg, attended by more than 120
participants from European Parliament, Civil Society and European Union, which
brought out: mass local resentment over Chinese projects negative environmental
impact and the utter disregard for environmental safety norms by the Chinese
infrastructure developers – literally trashing environment; PLA presence in
Pakistan Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan under the pretext of ensuring safety to
their workers; PLA creating Shia-Sunni divide causing direct threat to region
and locals; need for mechanism to investigate adverse effects of PLA presence
in Pakistan and Gilgit Baltistan; Pakistan has given mining license to Chinese
companies which has deprived natives of their lands; Baluch people are subject
to capital punishments without even
going through courts with Pakistan continuing its kill and dump policy in the
region – 336 bodies were found in alleged “kill-and-dump” cases during 2015 as
per rights activists.
·
In 2015, when Xi announced the $46 billion
investment in the CPEC, issue of legal status was never raised by China.
·
In November 2015,
before the 26-member strong delegation led by General Fan Changlong, Vice
Chairman of China’s Central Military Commission came to India, after visiting
Pakistan and signing the agreement for four tier security of the CPEC.
In all probability the Pathankot terror strike
was a calculated joint Chi-Pak orchestrated by the Pakistani military, aimed at
sensational damage to the IAF base and response from India. If the dialogue is
scuttled (let us say postponed indefinitely), so much the better.
Gilgit-Baltistan will promptly be declared Pakistani territory. Nawaz Sharif
saying more proof is needed for the Patahnkot terror strike indicates no action
will be taken by Pakistan or perhaps some perfunctory action will be taken,
even as Nawaz Sharif, Raheel Sharif and Rizwan Akhtar condemn terrorism in
unison. The US State Department has already given the leeway to Pakistan for a
‘timeless’ inquiry referring to how long it took to nab Osama-bin-Laden (as if
propagators of Pathankot strike are hiding in a third country), while US makes
no mention of the $10 million bounty announced on Hafiz Saeed who continues to
be treated as royalty in Pakistan. So, more terror attacks may follow. Following
Gilgit-Baltistan, rest of POK too can incrementally be declared part of
Pakistan while Pakistani military continue to wage proxy war on India at will,
to retain pre-eminence in Pakistan. Bruce Riddell already has attributed this
capability to Pakistan, which is not surprising given that India has failed to
establish credible deterrence against proxy war despite being subjected to
terrorism over past three decades. It sure is a deft move by Xi; the question
of legality of
land over which the CPEC comes up will be buried forever.
The CFL was drawn under the 1949
Karachi Agreement under aegis of the UN Commission and the UN was well aware of
the legal accession of entire erstwhile State of J&K to India. The preamble
of the UN Resolution mandated that Pakistan withdraw its security forces from
POK before a plebiscite is held. Pakistan instead increased her security forces
presence and unlike India changed the demography of POK deliberately, killing the issue of plebiscite forever. Results of
first ever poll both sides of the Line of Control in J&K conducted by the
Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House), UK in conjunction
King’s College during 2009-2010 (held on behest Musharraf and funded by
Gaddafi’s son in Libya) brought out that 98% of people in J&K do not wish
to be part of Pakistan and 50% of people in POK do not wish to remain with
Pakistan.
Does the above quote
by Ayesha Siddiqa indirectly hint at an understanding to resolve the Kashmir
Issue? Farukh Abdullah too went on record last month to say the LoC should be
converted to IB. Whatever be the case, India needs to carefully weigh the pros
and cons especially with the Gurdaspur and Pathankot attacks having been
engineered across the IB. Riaz Mohammad Khan, former foreign secretary of
Pakistan in his book ‘Afghanistan and Pakistan: Conflict, Extremism, and
Resistance to Modernity’ has examined extremist serving as instruments of its
(Pakistan’s) foreign policy. He refers to Pakistan’s foreign policy towards
India being based on nurturing some of the most dangerous international terrorist
organizations and their local protégés: “groups such as Sipah-e-Sahaba and
Jaish-e-Muhammad commonly resorting to threats to browbeat opponents.
An interesting
argument in his book is that the instruments of Pakistan’s foreign policy, the
mujahedeen, were not really controlled by the state; in fact, he talks of
growing evidence that it was the other way round. There is some sense in what
Riaz Mohammed Khan writes about reverse indoctrination albeit presently
terrorist leaders like Hafiz Saeed are not controlling but advising the
military.
Perhaps that is the
reason Musharraf says, “Even if the Kashmir issue is resolved, Jihad against
India will continue.” Once Pakistan includes Gilgit-Baltistan in her
Constitution, Congress that bent backwards in face of grave incidents on the
LoC during UPA II and lay inert when Shaksgam went the Chinese way and more
recently PLA moved into POK, will be baying from the rooftops for Prime
Minister Modi to act – citing the two resolutions by the Indian Parliament that
entire state of erstwhile J&K is part of India. The ball will then be
fairly and squarely in Modi’s court, if not already.
No comments:
Post a Comment