What constitutes Anti Pakistan?

 What constitutes Anti Pakistan? 

Dr Shabir Choudhry 25 June 2006 

It was perhaps in 1974 when I was first called 'anti Pakistan'. My crime, as always has been, was to criticise Pakistani policies on Kashmir. Kashmir is my homeland, and love of homeland is part of my faith as was said by our beloved Prophet PBUH after migrating from Makkah to Madina. 

State of Jammu and Kashmir, its future and welfare of the people is close to my heart. As a loyal son of soil, whether I live there or not, it is my duty to work for its liberation, its better future, its stability and for the welfare of its inhabitants irrespective of their social, cultural or religious affiliations. 

In order to fulfil this obligation I will use all my talent, knowledge and contacts to advance this cause; and for this 'crime' if some Pakistanis and some of my fellow citizens, on instructions of agencies or on their own accord call me 'anti Pakistan', then this is price worth paying. It should be a duty of every loyal and sincere citizen of Jammu and Kashmir to advance above goals, but if for whatever reason they cannot accomplish this task, or join this 'jihad' then they should not create problems for those who want to do this. 

Since 1974, I have seen many ups and downs. I have educated myself, met many diplomats, politicians and other experts in fields of politics, philosophy and law, but I have never understood meaning of this phrase, 'anti Pakistan', as envisaged by these people. In my honest opinion, I have never been 'anti Pakistan', but I have always been pro Kashmir, and by being pro Jammu and Kashmir my first priority is to protect interests of Jammu and Kashmir; as it is the first priority of Pakistanis to protect their national interest. 

It is, however, unfortunate that national interest of Pakistan is much lower down on the priority list of many Pakistanis; and they should not make Kashmiri nationalists scapegoat for their shortfall. In view of some Pakistanis it is appropriate for them to even work against the state of Pakistan and still claim the title of being a 'loyal Pakistanis'; and if a Kashmiri dares to criticise wrong Kashmir policy of Pakistan they get angry just like Jageerdars (landlords) get angry over daring question of his serfs. 

How unfortunate that those who opposed the very idea of Pakistan, opposed tooth and nail its creation, have now assumed a role of 'Qazi' to issue fatwas (edicts) who is loyal Pakistani and who is not. It is widely believed that those who opposed creation of Pakistan are the ones who are bent upon destroying Pakistan. They created instability, projected communalism and regionalism, and introduced gun culture with private armies to kill and intimidate opponents; and tragedy is that they are still considered as 'loyal Pakistanis', just because they have assumed monopoly over wisdom and Islam, and have army of volunteers to harass individuals, groups and even undemocratic governments. 

It was these people coupled with some other groups who created situation that East Pakistan was dismembered. Pakistan not only lost its eastern wing, but also its reputation and pride was also suffered; and more than ninety thousand prisoners of war were taken by India. 

Those responsible for that tragedy are not considered as 'anti Pakistan', but those Kashmiris who are well-wishers of Pakistan are called 'anti Pakistan' because they sincerely believe that for the peace, stability and prosperity of not only India and Pakistan but of South Asia lies in both countries leaving Jammu and Kashmir to let it become a bridge of peace. 

Those who are responsible for invading their own capital time and again, are not considered as 'anti Pakistan'. Those who were responsible for gun culture, Ohjari Camp, Kargil fiasco and many other blunders are still regarded as loyal Pakistanis. Those who wrote letters to the American Congress to stop aid and military fighters to Pakistan were not considered as 'anti Pakistan'; in fact they were promoted to rule the country. Those who high jacked Pakistani planes were not considered anti Pakistan; and those who declared that they will return to Pakistan on ‘Indian tanks’ were not taken as 'anti Pakistan'. On their return they were promoted and made Ministers. Those Pakistanis who hold demonstrations and seminars in different parts of the world to expose Pakistan and its weaknesses are not taken as 'anti Pakistan', but if I criticise a wrong Kashmir policy of Pakistan, I am instantly declared as 'anti Pakistan'. In view of this can anyone tell me what action constitutes 'anti Pakistan'? 

I was on a live TV programme last week and viewers asked me about elections in 'Azad Kashmir' (which in practise is a Pakistani colony). They also asked me about issues regarding Mangla dam/Basha Dam, Kashmir Council and Gilgit and Baltistan. All these matters are directly associated with Pakistan, and as a leading writer and 'expert' on the subject, I explained Pakistan's role in all these matters. While we were still on air we received some calls from viewers who accused me of being 'anti Pakistan'. They could not challenge any information I put forward while explaining Pakistan's role in these matters, but as is the practise, they think criticism by a Kashmiri on Pakistani policy is tantamount to opposing Pakistani state. They also asked me why I didn't criticise India. 

Hang on a minute; be sensible before you jump to label anyone with being 'anti Pakistan'. It was Pakistan who built Mangla dam against wishes of the local people, how could I criticise India for that. It is Pakistan who is again uprooting more than one 

lakh people by upraising the Mangla dam. There is clear opposition from the local people who would be uprooted twice just to meet water needs of Pakistan, and how could I criticise India for this? 

It is Pakistan which imposed Act 1974 on Azad Kashmir, and which has given all the powers to Pakistan, so much so that all senior officers in Azad Kashmir are Pakistanis directly appointed by Pakistan. It is this Act which demands people to declare their loyalty to Pakistan before fighting elections or before taking any government post. It is this Act which DOES not allow people to contest elections if they declare their loyalty to Kashmir. And please, before you issue a fatwa (edict) against me, tell me how I could criticise India for wrong doings of Act 74. 

We appreciate Pakistan's water and energy needs and for that we ask them to build dams inside Pakistan; and just because Pakistanis cannot agree to complete a dam inside their territory which is for the welfare and prosperity of Pakistan, it does not mean that they uproot us citizens of Jammu and Kashmir. Be it construction of Basha Dam or upraising of Mangla dam, they both lie in the Kashmiri territory, and construction of these dams is against the will of the local people and against the State Subject Ordinance. 

I want to ask these 'muftis' who have nothing else to do apart from causing mischief and sowing seeds of communalism and hatred to tell me how can I accuse India if Pakistan is uprooting people by building dam in Gilgit and Baltistan (Basha Dam). People of Gilgit and Baltistan are deprived of basic human rights there, even some Pakistani journalists call this as the 'last colony on earth', and can these 'muftis' tell me how can I criticise India for lack of human rights or whatever wrong is happening in this part of the world. 

India and the Indian statecraft DO NOT consist of angels. They are responsible for human rights violations on that side of the LOC, and there is plenty of evidence about human rights abuse there; but does it mean that we give free hand to bureaucrats of Islamabad to do whatever pleases them. Does it also mean that we put all wrong doings of Pakistan in the basket of India, and tell the world that everything here is rosy? 

We have made this mistake once, and we are not that stupid to do it again even if that means being labelled as 'anti Pakistan'. 

If this narrow-mindedness and bigotry was only coming from those with vested interests and from those whose role in society is to teach hatred and communalism then it would not have hurt me that much, as I know their myopic view and business like mentality. But it is unfortunate to note that this criticism is also coming from those who claim to be champions of human rights, and those who are educated and have lived in Western democracies for some decades. 

Throughout my life, despite odds I chose to fight against injustice; and I have suffered because of this principled stand. I strongly believe that it is my right to speak against forced and illegal upraising of Mangla Dam; It is my right to speak against illegal construction of Basha dam; it is my right to speak against wrong policies of Pakistani governments, be they are in Gilgit and Baltistan, Azad Kashmir or to do with the Kashmir dispute in general. 

And in exercise of these rights, if some people with tunnel vision and undemocratic values choose to call me 'anti Pakistan ', then so be it. I am not ashamed of what I am doing, if anything, I am proud of my struggle for human rights for all and injustice against none. I am proud to be fighting for liberal and democratic values. I am proud to be fighting for unification and complete independence of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Also I am proud to be fighting against those who promote extremism, sectarianism, hatred and violence. Despite these allegations and opposition my struggle for transparency, accountability, tolerance and just society will continue. 

Email: drshabirchoudhry@hotmail.com 

Is China a Fourth Party to Jammu and Kashmir dispute?

 Is China a Fourth Party to Jammu and Kashmir dispute? Dr Shabir Choudhry 28 October 2020 

Up till 26 October 1947, Jammu and Kashmir was one political entity. After that, Jammu and Kashmir’s sovereignty was compromised because a Muslim neighbour, Pakistan, despite the Standstill Agreement, attacked on Jammu and Kashmir to occupy it. 

The turmoil and the desperate situation created by Pakistan forced the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir to accede to India on three subjects, namely Defence, Foreign Affairs and Communication. 

In reality, after the accession on these Subjects, the issue was between people of Jammu and Kashmir and India; and Pakistan was not even a party to this. However, Pakistan became a party when the Security Council demanded to know what the country had to say on very serious charges of aggression, killings, abductions, looting and arson in Jammu and Kashmir; and that Pakistan must stop its aggression and human rights violations. 

In other words, Pakistan did not become a party to the Jammu and Kashmir dispute because of any legal right or a title, but because of the occupation of certain parts of Jammu and Kashmir. 

Although Pakistan was perceived as an ‘aggressor’ in Jammu and Kashmir, hence the demand of the UN Security Council of 13 August 1948, that Pakistan must vacate all areas occupied by them in their aggression; however, it seems that Pakistani aggression was rewarded as the country refused to withdraw, and still has strong hold on areas they occupied. 

Although we people of Jammu and Kashmir claim that we are the principal party to the dispute, and that we should have the final say on the future of the State, however, gradually the will and interests of the people of Jammu and Kashmir were pushed on one side, and ‘national interests’ of India and Pakistan became dominant in discussions on future of the divided State. Sadly, no leader of Jammu and Kashmir was allowed to be part of any discussions on Jammu and Kashmir. 

This means, in theory there are three parties to the Jammu and Kashmir dispute, but in practise, India and Pakistan are the parties which take decisions on various matters related to the Jammu and Kashmir dispute; and even about our lives, wars and 

future of the divided State. 

Even when China occupied Aqsai Chin in 1962, China was not taken as another party to the Jammu and Kashmir dispute. That is why, when Pakistan gifted around 5,000 KM from Shaksam Valley, Gilgit, to China, they had a treaty on this. Article 6 of The boundary agreement between china and Pakistan of 1963 says: 

‘The two Parties have agreed that after the settlement of the Kashmir dispute between Pakistan and India, the sovereign authority concerned will reopen negotiations with the Government of the People's Republic of China, on the boundary as described in Article Two of the present Agreement, so as to sign a formal Boundary Treaty to replace the present agreement: Provided that in the event of that sovereign authority being Pakistan, the provisions of this agreement and the aforesaid Protocol shall be maintained in the formal Boundary Treaty to be signed between the Peoples Republic of China and Pakistan’. 

After this gift and many more concessions in Gilgit Baltistan, China started supporting Pakistani narrative on Jammu and Kashmir, wrong as it was. Because of a long proxy war in Jammu and Kashmir, and other serious terrorism related matters, Pakistan faced many problems at the international level, and the Chinese help was always there to save Pakistan. 

Pakistan provided safe havens to terrorists; and China provided safe haven to Pakistani policy whenever it was in hot water. This partnership is getting stronger and more troublesome for neighbours, and even some other countries in other regions. 

During military rule of General Musharaf, Pakistan was under tremendous pressure, and as a result Musharaf Government made a number somersaults on Jammu and Kashmir dispute. 

General Musharaf assured the Pakistani army, the people of Pakistan, and of course their followers in Jammu and Kashmir that Pakistani army was invincible, and could easily defeat any military adventure from India. 

However, General Musharaf and the top military brass knew the bitter reality that, they could not hold on to the Indian attack in a conventional war for more than 4-5 days. Their strategy for that was to use nuclear bombs, which are for deterrent and not to be used in the battlefield, unless they wanted unexplainable mutual destruction. 

Musharaf regime, and those who followed him (Zardari government and Sharif government) actively pursued their policy of upgrading their missile system and nuclear bombs. They succumbed to Beijing for more and more economic and military assistance. A number of mineral rich areas were leased to China, and China was allowed to complete mega projects in Pakistan, and in areas of Jammu and Kashmir under their control. 

Later on, the China Pakistan Economic Corridor made Pakistan almost a client state of Pakistan, which allowed China to call shots in economic, strategic, defence and international issues. 

China helped and supported Pakistan at international level; and with time Pakistan became more subservient and compliant. Pakistan’s this role was not appreciated by many countries. This role of a client state did not suit a country with very large army and nuclear weapons and sophisticated delivery system. 

Many experts believe that there is an agreement between Beijing and Islamabad that in case of a full scale war with India, defence of Gilgit Baltistan, so called Azad Kashmir and Gwadar will be in hands of China. 

Apart from that, Pakistan and China have agreed that in the final disposition of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute, China will also be a party, as Beijing has huge economic, strategic and defence interests associated with these areas. 

With China being a fourth party to the Jammu and Kashmir dispute will become unresolvable, resulting in more problems for the citizens of Jammu and Kashmir and the region. 

It is sad to not that even after 73 years, some citizens of Jammu and Kashmir do not understand that Pakistan has their own interests, and liberty and welfare of the people of Jammu and Kashmir in not their priority. They fail to understand that a country which tramples democratic values and do not respect human rights of Pakistani citizens, cannot give fundamental rights to territories that are not legally part of Pakistan. 

In future China will become more aggressive, and will pursue its economic, military and strategic agenda more forcefully. This means more tension and instability in South Asia, East China Sea, South China Sea and possibly in Middle East and Balkans. 

Writer is a renowned writer and author of many books. He is also President Foreign Affairs Committee of UKPNP; and Chairman South Asia Watch, London. 

Email: Drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com Twitter: @Drshabir 

Difference between 22 and 27 October? Dr Shabir Choudhry

 

 Difference between 22 and 27 October? Dr Shabir Choudhry 

London 22 October 2017. 

It is sad that under the propaganda and distorted history taught to citizens of Jammu and Kashmir, some of us are still greatly influenced by narratives of our occupiers. This confusion is further aggravated by their foot soldiers and ‘face book’ scholars. 

Crown Representative Lord Mountbatten in his Address to a Special Full Meeting of the Chamber of Princes on 25 July 1947said: 

‘Now, the Indian Independence Act releases the States from all their obligations to the Crown. The States will have complete freedom-technically and legally they become independent.’ 1 

Also, on the status of the Princely States, Mohammed Ali Jinnah asserted on 7 June 1947: 

“Constitutionally and legally, the Indian States will be independent sovereign states on the termination of Paramountcy and they will be free to decide for themselves to adopt any course they like. It is open to them to join the Hindustan Constituent Assembly, the Pakistan Constituent Assembly, or decide to remain independent. In the last case, they enter into such arrangements or relationship with Hindustan or Pakistan as they may choose.” 2 

Mohammed Ali Jinnah demonstrated with his action that the Two Nations Theory flawed as it was, did not apply to the Princely States. The State of Junagarh had around 80% non - Muslim majority with a Muslim Ruler. If the Two Nations Theory was applicable to the Princely States then this Princely State should have automatically become part of India. But because the Two Nations Theory was not applicable to the Princely States, Mohammed Ali Jinnah as a Governor General of Pakistan accepted its accession to Pakistan. 

Despite these clear facts some people try to confuse the issue by saying that Jammu and Kashmir belongs to Pakistan because of the Two Nations Theory. 

There are other historical facts, which people try to confuse. After lapse of the British Paramountcy, the State of Jammu and Kashmir became independent on 15 August 1947. 

The Prime Minister of Jammu and Kashmir sent two telegrams to India and Pakistan with the same text, which reads and I quote: 

“Standstill Agreement” 

“Jammu and Kashmir Government would welcome Standstill Agreement with Union of India/Pakistan on all matters on which there exists arrangements with the outgoing British India Government.” 

The Government of Pakistan happily accepted the Standstill Agreement and replied back on 15 August 1947, which reads: 

“The Government of Pakistan agrees to have Standstill Agreement with Jammu and Kashmir for the continuation of existing arrangements …”. 

Some people wrongly propagate that the Government of India rejected the Standstill Agreement. This is not true. In reply to Prime Minister Kak’s telegram, the Government of India wrote back in the following words: 

“Government of India would be glad if you or some other Minister duly authorised in this behalf could fly to Delhi for negotiating Standstill Agreement between Kashmir Government and India dominion. Early action desirable to maintain intact existing agreements and administrative arrangements.” 

Furthermore, some people spend extra time to distort history and confuse the issues by saying that both armies entered Jammu and Kashmir as aggressors. This is also not true. An important distinction has to be made between the armies: 

1. Pakistani troops in civilian clothes and Tribesmen entered Jammu and Kashmir by violating the Standstill Agreement; 

2. They came to Kashmir against the wishes of the Maharaja; 

3. They came there with intention of invading the State and teaching the Ruler a lesson; 

4. The Jihad warriors were told they had a licence to kill, loot and plunder, and rape and kidnap women. 

The Indian army on the other hand came to Jammu and Kashmir: 

• • On the request of the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir; 
• • They came there after a treaty – Provisional accession; 
• • They came there to protect life, liberty and property of the people; 
• • They came there to drive out the invaders and protect integrity of Jammu and Kashmir. 3 

It is sad that role of the Indian troops changed with time; and they failed to honour obligations they assumed under the Provisional Agreement and under the UN Resolutions on Jammu and Kashmir. 

It is a bitter fact that troops of India, which came to save life, liberty and honour of people of Jammu and Kashmir, now have their hands red with the blood of the innocent Kashmiri people. They are responsible for committing human rights abuses. However, Pakistan gets the distinction to be the first country which attacked Jammu and Kashmir, killed innocent people, raped women and kidnaped them and then sold them in Pakistani cities. 

Some people are very eager to drag India in everything; and condemn India. They are also very enthusiastic to hold demonstrations against India. I am not against holding demonstrations against India. Nevertheless, I am against holding demonstration on 27 October and 15 August. 

In my considered opinion, 27 October cannot be a Black Day, because Indian troops came in Jammu and Kashmir on this date on the request of the Ruler of Jammu and Kashmir; and after a treaty known as Provisional accession. 

Also, 15 August cannot be a Black Day for two reasons. The British Raj ended on 15 August 1947, and with that Jammu and Kashmir also became independent. It is not prudent to call that day a Black Day and to hold demonstrations. Critics can say we are holding demonstrations against our own independent day. 

Furthermore, it is not sensible to hold a Black Day demonstration when people are celebrating their Independence Day. We need to win support of Indian and Pakistani civil society; and by holding demonstrations on their Independence Day we will only hurt their sentiments and turn them against us. 

In addition, if we only hold demonstrations on the Independence Day of India and wave Pakistani flags or remain quiet on 14 August, which is Pakistan’s Independence Day, we are giving this message to the world community that we are advancing the agenda of Pakistan. 

Apart from these dates, if you want to hold a demonstration against India on the issue of human rights abuses, I am with you. I will be out there with you protesting outside the Indian High Commission; but I cannot be a party to advance the agenda of GHQ. 

References: 

1. H S Guru Raj Rao, Legal Aspects of the Kashmir problem, Page 190 

2. In a reply to a question about legal status of the Princely States, Mohammed Ali Jinnah clarified Muslim League’s viewpoint on 17 June 1947. 

3. Some Clarifications regarding Kashmir dispute. 

http://drshabirchoudhry.blogspot.co.uk/2010/05/some-clarifications-regarding-kashmir.html 

Writer is a political analyst, and author of many books and booklets. Also, he is Chairman South Asia Watch, London and Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs. Email:drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com 

What happened after Jinnah walked in to Mosque with his shoes on? The man who tried to kill Jinnah,

 

 What happened after Jinnah walked in to Mosque with his shoes on? 

The man who tried to kill Jinnah, Shakil Chaudhary 

On July 26, 1943, at approximately 1:30 pm, Mohamad Rafiq Sabir Mazangavi, a 25-year-old tall and lean man with a long beard, arrived at Jinnah’s house in Bombay and asked to meet with him. He was from Lahore's Mazang area. 

Jinnah's secretary told him that his boss was a very busy person and that he could not meet him without a prior appointment. Suddenly, Jinnah emerged from his office to speak to his private secretary. As Jinnah turned back, the young man leaped forward and punched him in the face. Jinnah was stunned. 

As he regained his balance, the young man pulled out a dagger from his waistband and pointed at Jinnah’s throat. Jinnah understood the gravity of the situation. The dagger could slit Jinnah’s throat. He grabbed the assailant’s waist with one hand and clutched the wrist holding the dagger with the other hand. 

In the meantime, the blade had cut his jaw slightly. The stunned private secretary rushed to Jinnah’s rescue and held the assailant with his both hands. The other servants came running and overpowered the assailant. 

During the course of the trial, Rafiq decided to cross-examine the witnesses himself when the victim, Jinnah, stood in the witness box, Rafiq started the cross-examination. 

Rafiq: I had sent you many letters and telegrams and you never answered them. Do you agree? 

Jinnah: I don’t know. I receive hundreds of letters every day and I travel a lot. Hence, I am unable to read all the letters. 

Rafiq: You have not clarified the meaning of Pakistan. Please clarify the word Pakistan. 

Jinnah: The meaning of Pakistan is clear to those who want to understand it. No one can explain it to those who do not want to understand it. 

Rafiq: Jinnah Sahib, is there any personal enmity between us? 

Jinnah: No. I do not think so. 

Rafiq: Then can you tell me why I attacked you? 

Magistrate: This question is unnecessary. 

Rafiq: Your honor, can I ask Jinnah Sahib what happened at the time of his daughter’s marriage? 

Magistrate: No. Not at all. 

Rafiq: Is it true that you have received hundreds of copies of the Quran as gifts?

 

Jinnah: Yes. 

Rafiq: Do you know why are gifted to you? 

Jinnah: As per the Islamic tradition, the gifting of the Quran is bestowing an honor. 

Rafiq: These copies are gifted to you so that you could quit the politics of manipulation and study the Quran and lead a better life in your old age. 

Magistrate: This is not relevant to the case. 

Rafiq: Do you remember that you had entered the Shaheedganj Mosque in Lahore with your shoes on? 

Magistrate: We are not here to condemn the behavior of Quaid-i-Azam. We are here to investigate the attempted murder of him.

 

Rafiq: You honor, Quaid-i-Azam has just said that there is no enmity between us. We have no dispute over any property or woman. then why should I attack him? 

Magistrate: All right you can proceed. 

Rafiq: You are not conversant with the real conditions of the Muslims. Have you ever thought about their poverty and illiteracy and why they turn to begging, theft, and gambling? I wanted to meet you only to ask this question. 

Rafiq: Jinnah Sahib, your lifestyle is not in accordance with the principles of Islam. Then how can you be a leader of the Muslims? 

Jinnah: You must put this question to the Muslims of the country. 

Rafiq: You are not conversant with the real conditions of the Muslims. Have you ever thought about their poverty and illiteracy and why they turn to begging, theft, and gambling? I wanted to meet you only to ask this question. (For details, see Dinkar Joshi, Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah: 

The Man Behind the Curtain, Pentagon Press, 2012, pp. 259-263) 

Upon hearing the news of the murder attempt, GM Syed tried to commit suicide by jumping off the Sindh Assembly building. Syed Khair Shah, a fellow member of the assembly, saved his life. Subsequently, Mr. GM Syed fainted. 

On November 4, 1943, Rafiq was sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment. The allegation that he was a member of the Khaksar Tahreek turned out to be false. 

Pakistan Remains in the UN Terror Financing Grey Zone

 

 Pakistan Remains in the UN Terror Financing Grey Zone 

Pakistan has failed in letter and spirit to disrupt and dismantle terrorist financial infrastructure despite repeated warnings. 

By Husain Haqqani 

October 20, 2020 

Although Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi has assured his countrymen that Pakistan would soon get off the pre-sanctions watchlist of the U.N. money laundering and terror financing watchdog, it is unlikely that the international community will let Pakistan completely off the hook any time soon. 

The United Nations Financial Action Task Force (FATF), is holding its virtual plenary on Wednesday and Thursday (October 21-22) and once again Pakistan’s case is likely to receive most attention.

 

Pakistan has, for years, not fulfilled the international organization’s standards against money laundering and has failed to shut down financing of terrorist groups operating on its soil. 

But several countries have been reluctant to add Pakistan’s name to the FATF “blacklist,” which entails global economic sanctions currently imposed only on Iran and North Korea. Given the country’s poor track record in shutting down terrorist groups, Pakistan has been on FATF’s “grey list,” which has resulted in “enhanced monitoring” off and on for years. 

The grey list is normally meant to force governments into tightening their legal regimes against money laundering and terrorist financing in order to get off it. But for Pakistan, it has become a way to indefinitely escape the blacklist. Avoiding the blacklist has become a goal in itself for Islamabad and after every FATF meeting that gives Pakistan a reprieve, its leaders celebrate the failure of its enemy, India, in securing the imposition of full sanctions. 

The plenary that starts on Wednesday was originally scheduled for June, but the COVID-19 pandemic helped Pakistan get an additional four months to meet the U.N. task force’s requirements. Still, the FATF’s first follow-up report (FUR) on the mutual evaluation report (MER) about Pakistan suggests that the country has made little progress in creating an effective mechanism to end money laundering and combat terror financing. 

The FATF made 40 recommendations for what Pakistan needed to do and Pakistan fully complied with two of them, up from compliance on one item a year ago. Pakistan was reported as being non-compliant in four areas, partially compliant on 25 counts, and largely compliant on nine recommendations. 

Since June 2018, when Pakistan was last placed on the grey list, Pakistan has had the benefit of three extensions for complying with 27 points. In February 2020, FATF gave Pakistan a four-month grace period to complete implementation of its 27-point action plan against money laundering and terrorist financing. Then, Pakistan delivered on 14 points but missed 13 other targets. 

Pakistan’s compliance is largely technical, coming in the form of legislation or modification of banking rules. But it has repeatedly missed deadlines for shutting down all access to funding of United Nations Security Council designated terrorist groups, especially those with close ties to the country’s security establishment. These include the Taliban, al-Qaida, Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Jaish-e-Mohammad. 

Initiation of a few high profile cases, usually just ahead of FATF meetings, notwithstanding, Pakistan has shown no serious desire to prosecute the leaders of these groups for accessing finance or for actual acts of terrorism. Many of those designated as terrorists by the U.N. have gone through Pakistan’s revolving door. 

One month before the FATF meeting, Pakistan announced the freezing of 964 properties of proscribed groups such as Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD) and Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) under the United Nations Security Council (Freezing and Seizure) Order, 2019. 

In February an anti-terrorism court sentenced JuD chief Hafiz Muhammad Saeed to five-and-a-half years in prison in two cases after finding him guilty of terror financing and affiliation with an outlawed group. In August, three of his associates were sentenced to jail terms by a court in Lahore: Malik Zafar Iqbal and Abdul Salam Bhattvi to five years each in jail, and Abdul Rehman Makki to 18 months. All sentences are under appeal. 

Also in August, the government tried to quickly pass the 2020 Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA) and Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) Amendments but they failed to convince the parliamentary opposition, which blocked the move. 

It is impossible for the international community not to notice how terrorist leaders are detained just in time to avoid international sanctions and released once the immediate threat of sanctions subsides. But Pakistan’s status as the world’s only Muslim nuclear weapons power and its strategic location, coupled with close ties with China and a past alliance with the United States, enable it to avoid punishments that other countries receive for similar actions. 

Pakistan has so far successfully managed to avoid the blacklist due to diplomatic support from China, Turkey, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia and other Middle East countries. Avoiding the blacklist requires support of fewer countries, but support of 12 out of FATF’s 39 members is needed to exit the grey list. Difficulty in getting that level of support is the reason why Pakistan remains ever on the grey list even when it cannot be put on the blacklist. 

 

Pakistan’s main international benefactor, China, is currently the chief of the Asia-Pacific group of FATF, something that helps Pakistan breathe easy. When China hosted the meeting of the international terror financing watchdog in Beijing in January 2020, its officials praised Pakistan’s “visible progress” in strengthening its counter terrorism financing system, and asked the world to encourage Pakistan. 

For this week’s plenary, Pakistan is also hoping for concessions from the United States in return for Pakistan’s support for U.S. talks with the Afghan Taliban. But the best the U.S. can do for Pakistan is to keep it on the grey list again. It would be difficult for the U.S. and other Western governments to ignore the evidence about the continuing operation of jihadi groups in Pakistan. 

Husain Haqqani, director for South and Central Asia at the Hudson Institute, was Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States from 2008 to 2011. 

https://thediplomat.com/2020/10/pakistan-remains-in-the-un-terror-financing-grey-zone/ 

Are you important?

 Are you important? 

Some people think they are invincible. Some others consider them to be very important and popular. 

Another class of people believe they have good contacts and hold special relationship with friends and colleagues. 

Some of us give most of our time to issues related the community or a national cause, hoping that the community will benefit and praise the effort. 

Whether the community benefits and praise the effort or not let me leave this on one side; and let me explain who suffers most in this unappreciated struggle: 

your parents, wife and children.

 

You could not find sufficient time for them, yet they were the special people in your life. 

I have also given most of my time ,since 1973, to my national struggle and sacrificed my career. Apart from that, at one time, because of the JKLF I got involved in activities which could have resulted in many years of imprisonment. 

I have authored 70 books and booklets on issues related to the former Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir. My most recent books, published in the last two months are: 

1/ Legal Status of Jammu and Kashmir – Realisation of Bitter Facts 

2/ How Azad is Azad Kashmir Government. 

I have attended, and organised dozens of international conferences on Jammu and Kashmir; addressed conferences in the UN Human Council in Geneva, anchored a TV programme on Kashmir for 4 years, and gave hundreds of TV interviews. 

I am also very active social media activist, with around 40,000 following, which include followers from Twitter, Gmail, Facebook, individuals, Groups I manage and my page. 

Because of what I did, I and my family suffered immensely. I don’t want to enumerate my financial losses; sad thing is that I could not even travel with a dead body of my father; and I cannot visit a place where I was born. 

As a social media activist, I normally send 4-5 post daily, and sometimes more than that. I keep my followers busy with posts on different topics, not only on Jammu and Kashmir, but on other issues which may be of interest to them. My purpose is to provide them with knowledge and educate them. 

On last Monday, I had excruciating pain just below the ribs. It was extremely intolerable and very tormenting. Ambulance came and they decided to take me to hospital. Since Covid 19, general perception in our community in England is that people with other ailments (like I have heart condition with 5 stents and one lung 80% dead), they come back in a box, as they have become a burden on the state. 

However, we had no choice as the pain was unendurable. Once in the ambulance, I discovered that my wife and daughter cannot go with me. I believed I will not survive, and sad thing was I could not even say Allah hafiz to my wife and daughter. 

I was diagnosed with a serious infection in my Gall Bladder. I was given two kinds of anti-biotics, general only one is given for infections. In total, I was taking 33 tablets daily, including my normal medicine. 

From Monday to Wednesday evening, every hour, I thought could be my last hour. No email, no Facebook, no twitter, no discussion of any kind on phone as I was not in a position. 

Thank Allah SWT, with prayers of my wife, daughters and sons in law, slowly I started recovering. After this very difficult time, I had this satisfaction in my mind that my friends, followers, well-wishers, those who read and appreciate what I post must have missed my absence and realised that there was something wrong.

 

On Wednesday, I used my mobile for 5 minutes, and to my surprise, there was only one message from a lady who married in to our family. Her husband, my nephew, is a solicitor and his wife is a school teacher. Message was:

 

Uncle, Salam. I have not seen any post from you for the past 3 days. That is not normal. I hope you are OK.

 

On Friday, I had a similar message from respected Abbas Butt, my friend and a political colleague. 

Rational of this is: care for those who are really special, your parents, wife and children. 

I shall be taking my last dose of anti-biotics, I feel much better today, however, the knock my system has endured in the last 7-8 days will take weeks to recover. 

May be you are very important, but do look after yourself and those who deserve your attention.