Gilgit Baltistan, The Emergence of China, Presentation of Dr Shabir Choudhry in House of Lords on 11 Feb 2011
Madam Chair, Baroness Emma Nicholson, friends and colleagues aslamo alaykam and good afternoon.
First of all I want to thank Baroness Emma Nicholson and her staff for sincerely and actively working to promote the cause of people of Jammu and Kashmir; and for making arrangements for this seminar.
Also I want to thank my colleagues Abbas Butt, Mohammed Asim, Mohammed Shoaib and Imitiaz Ul Maqsood who, as a part of the delegation visited Gilgit and Pakistani Administered Kashmir. The journey was extremely difficult and hazardous.
Madam Chair
Parties to the Kashmir dispute and China
Former State of Jammu and Kashmir has great strategic importance; but if areas of Gilgit Baltistan are annexed by another country then that will significantly reduce its strategic importance.
Some people with vested interest promote Kashmir dispute as a religious dispute, and claim that only Indian Administered Kashmir is disputed. In our view that is distortion of facts, as Kashmir dispute is political in nature; and the entire State of Jammu and Kashmir which includes Jammu, Valley, Ladakh, Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan is disputed.
Hitherto there were only three parties to the Kashmir dispute, namely people of Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan and India. Over the recent past some quarters are working hard to make Republic of China a party to the dispute. To me this is a very dangerous move which will complicate the dispute further; and could prove to be disastrous for the region, especially for areas of Gilgit Baltistan and northern parts of Pakistan.
Apart from that, parties to the Kashmir dispute are countries of South Asia. China is not in South Asia, but has great economic, political and strategic interests in the region going beyond the coast of Gawadar Sea Port.
Those who want to cut out an active role for China in the Kashmir dispute need to understand that China is a great economic and military power, and they will protect and safeguard their own interest; and that could well be against desires and interests of those who are promoting a Chinese role in this region.
Role of China
Some commentators point out that China already has a role in the Kashmir dispute, as they have supported rights of the Kashmiris on different platforms. In that sense many other countries also have a role in the Kashmir dispute, as they have supported different UN Resolutions and other initiatives to peacefully resolve the Kashmir dispute.
This kind of support expresses concern of other countries about the on going trouble in Kashmir, and instability it can have for the region; however, this kind of support DOES NOT make them a party to the Kashmir dispute, as India and Pakistan are. We can appreciate desire of other countries to facilitate the dialogue process to resolve the Kashmir dispute in accordance with will of the people; but we must refrain from making other countries a party to the Kashmir dispute, as it will be counter productive.
China’s role on Kashmir has been inconsistent, as it vacillated with time from being neutral to pro Kashmir, pro Pakistan and back to neutrality; even during the Kargil crises, by and large China remained neutral. But since 2008, China has been more assertive and pro active in matters related to Jammu and Kashmir and on borders of India with China.
Sino India war of 1962 resulted in Chinese occupation of Kashmiri territory of Aksai Chin. This war brought Pakistan and China closer to each other; and to strengthen that friendship, Pakistan gave away around 2200 sq miles of Jammu and Kashmir territory from Gilgit Baltistan to China. But despite that, China at that time, had no plans to play an active or assertive role in this region, as is evident from the agreement between the both countries.
In article 6 of this agreement China acknowledged that the sovereignty of Gilgit Baltistan did not rest with Pakistan. The agreement reads and I quote:
‘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 the sovereign authority being Pakistan, the provisions of the present agreement and of the aforesaid protocol shall be maintained in the formal boundary treaty to be signed between the People’s Republic of China and Pakistan.’ Unquote
Competing interests in Gilgit Baltistan
The above policy of China has changed, because China has emerged as a formidable economic and military power; and needs to find new markets, new sources of energy and new assertive role. In that context China wants to ensure that they have a greater say in matters of Gilgit Baltistan; and even in matters of Pakistan. They want to ensure that they not only have access but control of the route to Gawadar where they have invested billions of dollars.
There is a big Chinese presence in Gilgit Baltistan. Apparently they are involved in construction of many mega projects, but presence of Chinese army and their designs to take control of this region is worrying to many. Not only they are opening Chinese banks there and building infrastructure by investing billions of dollars, they are secretly and assertively taking control of the region.
When we visited the region in October last year, we saw many Chinese there which included army men. In the past they used to come for development work, and lived in temporary shelters; and went back after completing their tasks, but now they are here to stay and have built concrete accommodations. During our visit, we managed to take some photos with Chinese; and what also surprised us were sign boards in Chinese.
All this is worrying to people of Gilgit Baltisatn. It is also worrying to India and America, as they would not like Chinese influence and control in this region; especially Chinese desire to reach and control port of Gawadar. It is not likely that India and America would remain silent spectators and give China a free hand, as they also have keen interest in the region.
One Indian defence analyst, Bharat Verma recently said, and I quote:
‘The self-destructive path that Islamabad chose will either splinter the state into many parts or it will wither away - a case of natural progression to its logical conclusion. In either case Baluchistan will achieve independence. For New Delhi this opens a window of opportunity to ensure that the Gwadar port does not fall into the hands of the Chinese. In this, there is synergy between the political objectives of the Americans and the Indians. Our existing goodwill in Baluchistan requires intelligent leveraging.’ Unquote
I don’t subscribe to the views expressed above, however, what my worry is that our region could be a battleground for competing interests; and that could prove disastrous.
However, some analysts believe, as Pakistan is becoming ungovernable and is fast losing its writ over certain areas, they have allowed China to fill in vacuum if Pakistan is faced with a serious civil war or a war with India or some other power.
What surprises some analysts is that on one hand there is growing bilateral trade ties between India and China; and on the other hand increased tension and rivalry over areas of Jammu and Kashmir and other border and water disputes. One wonders if this increased tension and claims and counter claims will jeopardize growing trades and understanding between the both countries.
On one hand there is a strategic partnership between India and America, and on the other hand there is a strategic partnership and a common agenda of China and Pakistan. However, Pakistan is also an important partner of America in war against terrorism.
But it must be noted that those forces which promote and export Jihad, on one hand they seek American help and support in Kashmir; and on the other hand they train, arm and help those groups that seek to attack American targets. Similarly there are clear contradictions in relations to China, which was promoted as ‘all weather’ friend, but at the same time they trained and armed Muslim rebels in China.
Survey
In the recent past some important surveys have been conducted with some astonishing results. All surveys had one finding in common that the people of Jammu and Kashmir on the Indian side of the LOC did not want to join Pakistan. We wanted to ascertain views of the people in Azad Kashmir and in Gilgit Baltistan. It was a sample survey of 150 people from both regions.
You can understand the situation prevailing there by this example. We were sitting in a hotel with a group of local people and we were discussing various issues. In reply to one question one man very forcefully expressed his resentment against Pakistani rule. He said, ‘Like Nawaz Naji Sahib, his first option is an independent Gilgit Baltistan, second option is united and independent Jammu and Kashmir; but if we had only two options, he will vote for India and not Pakistan. We have seen true face of Pakistan in the last 63 years, we know what the Pakistani rule is like; it will be good idea to see what Indian rule is like’.
That was an interesting and courageous statement. I asked him are sure you would vote for India, if there were only two options. He said, ‘Yes’, and then immediately changed his tone and statement. He said: ‘India is a Hindu country. Pakistan with all its faults is a Muslim country. They are our brothers; and if we have only two options we will vote for Pakistan. But our first option is an independent Gilgit Baltistan.’
After the meeting when we were walking towards our room that man got hold of my hand and said: ‘Choudhry Sahib sorry for that change of tone and change of statement. You could not see, but I saw ISI man coming to the restaurant. I had to change my statement; otherwise I could have been in trouble. There is no need to annoy them unnecessarily and get myself and my family in to trouble. We know what to do when it comes to the voting time.’
That statement spoke volumes about the situation here and sense of fear and oppression. Despite this man’s change of statement and despite presence of the ISI man, who was not visible to me, at least, three students said they will vote for India if there were only two options available to them.
Q8.Who would you vote for, if there was an internationally arranged referendum with no threat of intimidation or coercion, and you were given only two options either to join India or Pakistan?
A. 45% said they will vote for Pakistan
B. 30% said they will boycott it
C. 15% said they will decide on the day
D. 10% said they will vote for India as they have seen what Pakistan is like
Q9. And if a Third Option of an independent Jammu and Kashmir is also included then who would you vote?
A. 60% said they will vote for the Third option of independence
B. 30% said they will vote for Pakistan
C. 10% said they will vote for India
Conclusion
There could be people who might disagree with outcome of our survey; and I don’t claim that this reflects the true aspirations of the people of these two regions. Some Pakistani and Azad Kashmiri officials acknowledged privately that majority of people of Azad Kashmir will not vote for them in totally impartial plebiscite, especially if held under some international supervision.
The best way to ascertain views of people of Azad Kashmir and people of Gilgit Baltistan is to arrange an impartial plebiscite under reputable international organisation, like the UN. Outcome of that plebiscite will not only show what people of these regions want, it will also strengthen Pakistani position. Are they willing to take this challenge?
As today is 11 February, a day when Kashmiri pay tribute to Martyrdom of great Kashmiri leader MAQBOOL BUTT, it is only appropriate that I end with a quote of Maqbool Butt. In a Statement before a special court in Pakistan Maqbool Butt said, and I quote:
‘No one can stop men from claiming that every ruling power in Pakistan has exploited the Kashmir issue for last 25 years for its lust for power and abused this issue to mislead the people of Pakistan who have and still do support the freedom of Kashmir. When power came into the hands of military dictatorship this conspiracy has become even more dreadful. Division of Pakistan is only a logical result of this conspiracy.’
Madam Chair, I thank you for your patience.
Writer is Head Diplomatic Committee of Kashmir National Party, political analyst and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs.Email:drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com
View my blog and web: www.drshabirchoudhry.blogspot.com
www.k4kashmir.com
Friday, 11 February 2011
Gilgit Baltistan, The emergence of China, speech by Abbas Butt
Gilgit Baltistan, The emergence of China, speech by Abbas Butt
House of Lords, 11 February 2011
On behalf of the Kashmir National Party [KNP], I would like to firstly thank Baroness Nicholson for arranging today’s event to help give KNP a voice and to mark the launch of our Report and Survey conducted in Gilgit and Baltistan and Pakistan Administered Kashmir. I would also like to take this opportunity to welcome everyone to this event and express my gratitude for giving their time towards our cause.
I would like to thank Dr Shabir Choudhry for his hard work towards conducting this survey and many thanks to the whole of the KNP delegation for showing their support towards the survey. A special thanks to Mr Asim Mirza, Mr Shuaib Chaudhry and Mr Imtiaz Maqsood who took part in the thorny and complex journey to Gilgit.
It was a very long, tiring and not to mention dangerous twenty four hour non-stop journey from Islamabad to Gilgit. Being a keen traveller, I was always up to the challenge but this journey was certainly the most difficult I have ever undertook; with the state looking more like an army camp than an area of residence, with more fully loaded soldiers including Chinese soldiers more than actual civilians. The explanation for this I’m sure by the end of this debate will be very clear, if not already. However, we reached Gilgit and successfully conducting the survey and as you can see received very strange results.
These strange results are due to Pakistan’s foreign policy towards Kashmir. I hope the eyes of the people from Jammu and Kashmir including Gilgit and Baltistan have been opened and they can now see very clearly that Pakistan is not sincere towards regaining our nation of Kashmir their freedom, they are only sincere in their desperate aim of conquering our land.
The stance law and order holds in Pakistan and the economic crisis they are suffering from at the moment also pays a negative effect on them. Nothing is safe in Pakistan, or should we say no one is safe in Pakistan, even Pakistanis themselves are attempting to leave their motherland only to provide their families with a safe and secure future then why should anyone else be expected to meet with a government who run such a misfortunate country?
Any foreigner is free to enter Pakistan and brutally murder a Pakistani on the grounds of their own land and no justice is sought, beyond this, for the greed of a few dollars Pakistanis themselves are prepared to hand over the heads of their own people to a foreign power. Ministers of Pakistan themselves have predicted nothing more than bankruptcy and civil war in Pakistan.
If any Kashmiri still finds it a good idea to plebiscite with Pakistan then I only have one thing to say; either they hold a private interest in this matter or they lack sense. Our aim whilst travelling through the treacherous hills of Gilgit, risking our lives at every point was only to highlight the reality of the wishes of the people of Gilgit.
Finally I would like to state that our book called, ‘Another round of the Great Game’, from which the report and survey we are launching today has been lifted is still in printing process and should InshAllah be complete by March and then we shall launch our ‘book’ in Geneva on our trip to the UN, Human Rights Commission.
Due to shortage of time I am unable to speak on the specific topic this debate is held on but present here we have great academics that will provide you with their expert knowledge on the topic. If there is still any confusion left on the matter then we will be more than willing to answer any queries in the question and answer time.
Writer is Chairman of Kashmir National Party
Tel:0044 (0)7949812543
Email: knp_butt@yahoo.co.uk
House of Lords, 11 February 2011
On behalf of the Kashmir National Party [KNP], I would like to firstly thank Baroness Nicholson for arranging today’s event to help give KNP a voice and to mark the launch of our Report and Survey conducted in Gilgit and Baltistan and Pakistan Administered Kashmir. I would also like to take this opportunity to welcome everyone to this event and express my gratitude for giving their time towards our cause.
I would like to thank Dr Shabir Choudhry for his hard work towards conducting this survey and many thanks to the whole of the KNP delegation for showing their support towards the survey. A special thanks to Mr Asim Mirza, Mr Shuaib Chaudhry and Mr Imtiaz Maqsood who took part in the thorny and complex journey to Gilgit.
It was a very long, tiring and not to mention dangerous twenty four hour non-stop journey from Islamabad to Gilgit. Being a keen traveller, I was always up to the challenge but this journey was certainly the most difficult I have ever undertook; with the state looking more like an army camp than an area of residence, with more fully loaded soldiers including Chinese soldiers more than actual civilians. The explanation for this I’m sure by the end of this debate will be very clear, if not already. However, we reached Gilgit and successfully conducting the survey and as you can see received very strange results.
These strange results are due to Pakistan’s foreign policy towards Kashmir. I hope the eyes of the people from Jammu and Kashmir including Gilgit and Baltistan have been opened and they can now see very clearly that Pakistan is not sincere towards regaining our nation of Kashmir their freedom, they are only sincere in their desperate aim of conquering our land.
The stance law and order holds in Pakistan and the economic crisis they are suffering from at the moment also pays a negative effect on them. Nothing is safe in Pakistan, or should we say no one is safe in Pakistan, even Pakistanis themselves are attempting to leave their motherland only to provide their families with a safe and secure future then why should anyone else be expected to meet with a government who run such a misfortunate country?
Any foreigner is free to enter Pakistan and brutally murder a Pakistani on the grounds of their own land and no justice is sought, beyond this, for the greed of a few dollars Pakistanis themselves are prepared to hand over the heads of their own people to a foreign power. Ministers of Pakistan themselves have predicted nothing more than bankruptcy and civil war in Pakistan.
If any Kashmiri still finds it a good idea to plebiscite with Pakistan then I only have one thing to say; either they hold a private interest in this matter or they lack sense. Our aim whilst travelling through the treacherous hills of Gilgit, risking our lives at every point was only to highlight the reality of the wishes of the people of Gilgit.
Finally I would like to state that our book called, ‘Another round of the Great Game’, from which the report and survey we are launching today has been lifted is still in printing process and should InshAllah be complete by March and then we shall launch our ‘book’ in Geneva on our trip to the UN, Human Rights Commission.
Due to shortage of time I am unable to speak on the specific topic this debate is held on but present here we have great academics that will provide you with their expert knowledge on the topic. If there is still any confusion left on the matter then we will be more than willing to answer any queries in the question and answer time.
Writer is Chairman of Kashmir National Party
Tel:0044 (0)7949812543
Email: knp_butt@yahoo.co.uk
Tuesday, 8 February 2011
US Priorities in South Asia Spelled Out
US Priorities in South Asia Spelled Out
Wednesday, 26 January 2011 09:02 Ernest Corea
WASHINGTON D.C. (IDN) - The U.S. has three primary objectives in South and Central Asia, Assistant Secretary of State Robert O. Blake said, during an analysis of regional policy he recently presented at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University in Houston, Texas. These are to:
- Support international efforts in Afghanistan;
- Build a strategic partnership with India; and
- Develop more durable and stable relations with the Central Asian countries.
Blake is a senior professional diplomat who joined the foreign service in 1985. His positions have included Executive Assistant to the Under Secretary for Political Affairs, and Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi. Immediately before taking on his current duties, he was Ambassador to Sri Lanka and Maldives.
As Assistant Secretary at the head of the State Department's Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs, Blake deals primarily with the region from Sri Lanka in the south to Kazakhstan in the north, from Maldives to Bhutan, with a Special Representative taking the primary job of coordinating policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Blake pointed out that while this part of the world is primarily defined for many Americans by the challenges faced in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the region is also marked by great promise and opportunity.
Central Asia lies at a critical strategic crossroads, bordering Afghanistan, China, Russia and Iran, which is why the U.S. wants to continue to expand engagement and cooperation with this critical region.
As for South Asia, with India as its thriving anchor, it is a region of growing strategic and commercial importance to the United States in the critical Indian Ocean area.
CRUCIAL OBJECTIVE
Following are excerpts from Blake’s comments as prepared for delivery:
My bureau's single most important priority is supporting stabilization efforts in Afghanistan. The (U.S.) President, Secretary (of State Hillary) Clinton, Secretary (of Defence Robert) Gates and other members of the Cabinet have spent countless hours reviewing and honing our efforts in the region. I am pleased to say that Central Asia and India have played a critical role in supporting coalition efforts in the region.
The Northern Distribution Network -- the NDN -- runs through most of the Central Asian countries, supplies a growing percentage of provisions for our military effort and offers an alternative to the more widely used southern supply route through Pakistan.
The NDN increasingly offers the people of the Central Asian countries the opportunity to sell goods and services to NATO troops in Afghanistan, and we hope it can help catalyze greater trade and economic cooperation between Afghanistan and Central Asia.
Even beyond the NDN, the Central Asian nations have underpinned our efforts to fight the Taliban and rebuild Afghanistan. Kyrgyzstan hosts the Manas transit center, which facilitates troop transport and supports refueling missions for coalition forces in Afghanistan.
Electricity from Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan power the lights of Kabul, while the completion of a railhead in Mazar-e-Sharif this year will link the Uzbek and Afghan railways. Cultivating broad and long-lasting relationships with the Central Asian countries is the only way to ensure a common understanding and gain their long-term support for our efforts in Afghanistan.
TRANSIT AGREEMENT
We hope that the Afghanistan-Pakistan Transit Trade Agreement, which will enter into force on February 11, will also lead to increased trade between Afghanistan and its northern neighbors Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. Further afield, we also see the agreement as opening an opportunity for India and Pakistan to ramp up commercial engagement.
South Asian countries also have supported international efforts to rebuild Afghanistan. Bangladesh's largest NGO, Bangladesh Rehabilitation Assistance Committee (BRAC), runs activities in all 34 of Afghanistan’s provinces.
India has been a major contributor to reconstruction, with more than $1.3 billion in assistance so far, including the construction of highways, transmission lines, and the parliament building.
As a sign of our close partnership in the region, the President announced during his landmark visit to India in November (2010) that we would work with India on women's empowerment and capacity building in Afghanistan.
STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP
These projects with India in Afghanistan mark a small but important part of a significant new global development -- the emergence of a global strategic partnership between India and the United States.
As President Obama said in his November 8 speech to the Indian Parliament, "For the first time ever, our governments are working together across the whole range of common challenges that we face. Now, let me say it as clearly as I can: The U.S. not only welcomes India as a rising global power, we fervently support it, and we have worked to help make it a reality."
India's democracy, diversity and knowledge-based society make it special, a model of a tolerant pluralistic society in the region, and one that now actively seeks to work with the U.S. and others to help solve problems on a global level.
POWERHOUSE FOR GROWTH
Growing ties between our societies, our economies and our governments have helped sustain and accelerate India's rise. The nearly three million Indian-Americans (in the U.S.) provide a powerful connection between us, as do the more than 100,000 Indian students studying in U.S. universities.
Bilateral trade has more than tripled in the last decade, creating jobs and opportunities for both of us. Cooperation in counter-terrorism and defense modernization is at unprecedented levels.
The strength of India's economy makes it the powerhouse of South and Central Asia's growth. India's economy grew about 7.4 percent in 2010; one of the fastest in the world, and by 2025 India is expected to become the 3rd largest economy in the world, behind the United States and China. Its middle class now numbers 300 million and is expected to double over the next 20 years.
India's growing economic power has also made it among the fastest growing investors in the United States. Over the last decade, investment from India to the United States grew at an annualized rate of 53% reaching an estimated $4.4 billion in 2009.
Engagement across the U.S. and Indian governments has never been as robust and comprehensive as it is today. The President's dramatic visit to India highlighted the vast ties between our two countries, and our cooperation on critical issues ranging from climate change, to counter-terrorism, nonproliferation and energy diversity.
President Obama acknowledged India's growing role in the world by endorsing India for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.
PEOPLE-TO-PEOPLE LINKS
Our people-to-people linkages likewise have grown tremendously. During his stop in Mumbai, President Obama announced business and defense deals that exceeded $14.9 billion, with $9.5 billion in U.S. export content, supporting the creation of over 50,000 jobs.
We will build on the President's visit in the coming year through an intensive program of collaborative activities, high-profile visits and even greater engagement. Of particular note, we welcome the opportunity to work with India closely during its two-year tenure on the UN Security Council, which started January 1.
On the business side, Commerce Secretary (Gary) Locke will travel to India in February to attend Aero India, the biannual Indian aerial fair that has grown in importance as India itself has grown. India will soon announce the winners of a tender worth up to $12 billion to supply 126 medium multi-range combat aircraft -- a competition in which both Boeing and Lockheed Martin have entered their jets.
Secretary Clinton and other Cabinet officials will also travel to India this spring for the U.S.-India Strategic Dialogue, which oversees the entire spectrum of our cooperation.
I could go on into our joint activities to promote healthy families, reinforce food security in Africa, engage in regional consultations, develop innovative clean energy, bring monsoon forecasting data to farmers…and the list goes on. What we ultimately aim to do is develop the habits of cooperation that establish a partnership that will shape the 21st century in a way that bring peace and prosperity to the world.
INDIA'S NEIGHBOURS
A review of my bureau would not be complete without mentioning the other South Asian countries that neighbor India: Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bangladesh, Bhutan, and Maldives. The growth of India has overshadowed the progress made in all of these countries.
Bangladesh has experienced an average of 6% growth in GDP over the last 18 years, which has helped lift millions of Bangladeshis out of poverty. Houston, with its large Bangladeshi diaspora community, has undoubtedly contributed to the $11 billion in global remittances Bangladesh receives each year.
Bangladesh, with its inclusive growth model and newly stable government, represents another potential powerhouse in the neighborhood. The investigation into the Nobel prize-winning Grameen Bank, however, has raised concerns. Secretary Clinton has urged the government to maintain its democratic values and ensure its investigation is impartial and balanced.
Nepal and Sri Lanka have both ended terrible internal conflicts in the last few years, but each must now secure the peace. In Katmandu last week (January 6), the UN Mission for Nepal withdrew, putting responsibility for completing the peace process squarely in the hands of Nepal's fractious parties. The U.S. Government will continue to support the peace process.
I urged all the parties to continue to respect their own commitments under the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and said it is incumbent upon Nepal’s leaders to bring the peace process to a much needed conclusion. The U.S. was pleased that the parties reached agreement on arrangements to continue the monitoring of arms and the armies. We hope that same spirit will help the parties reach agreement on the integration and rehabilitation of Maoist army personnel into the Nepalese army and police, and on a new constitution.
GREAT DIVERSITY
While Sri Lanka's economy has thrived since the end of its brutal civil war, its reconciliation has proceeded more slowly. I hope that the government will act on the recommendations of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission it set up, as part of wider efforts that will be needed to help establish a lasting peace.
South Asia's smallest countries, Bhutan and Maldives, both experienced peaceful transitions to democracy in 2008. The Bhutanese model of Gross National Happiness has shaped new thinking about economic growth in developing countries, and Bhutan is on track to achieve all of its Millennium Development Goals.
And the moderate Muslim nation of the Maldives, now led by a former Amnesty International Prisoner of Conscience, has punched above its weight in the global debate on climate change, and thought of innovative ways to illustrate the plight of its sinking atolls. The Cabinet meeting it held underwater certainly captured the attention of the world.
The region's diversity opens many opportunities; it also presents a challenge in our efforts to encourage these disparate countries to work together. We have many obstacles to overcome still, but I hope that our effort to rebuild Afghanistan and develop deeper relations throughout the region will contribute to this vision.
2011 IDN-InDepthNews | Analysis That Matters
The writer has served as Sri Lanka's ambassador to Canada, Cuba, Mexico, and the USA. He was Chairman of the Commonwealth Select Committee on the media and development, Editor of the Ceylon 'Daily News' and the Ceylon 'Observer', and was for a time Features Editor and Foreign Affairs columnist of the Singapore 'Straits Times'. He is on the IDN editorial board and President of the Media Task Force of Global Cooperation Council.
Wednesday, 26 January 2011 09:02 Ernest Corea
WASHINGTON D.C. (IDN) - The U.S. has three primary objectives in South and Central Asia, Assistant Secretary of State Robert O. Blake said, during an analysis of regional policy he recently presented at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University in Houston, Texas. These are to:
- Support international efforts in Afghanistan;
- Build a strategic partnership with India; and
- Develop more durable and stable relations with the Central Asian countries.
Blake is a senior professional diplomat who joined the foreign service in 1985. His positions have included Executive Assistant to the Under Secretary for Political Affairs, and Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi. Immediately before taking on his current duties, he was Ambassador to Sri Lanka and Maldives.
As Assistant Secretary at the head of the State Department's Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs, Blake deals primarily with the region from Sri Lanka in the south to Kazakhstan in the north, from Maldives to Bhutan, with a Special Representative taking the primary job of coordinating policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Blake pointed out that while this part of the world is primarily defined for many Americans by the challenges faced in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the region is also marked by great promise and opportunity.
Central Asia lies at a critical strategic crossroads, bordering Afghanistan, China, Russia and Iran, which is why the U.S. wants to continue to expand engagement and cooperation with this critical region.
As for South Asia, with India as its thriving anchor, it is a region of growing strategic and commercial importance to the United States in the critical Indian Ocean area.
CRUCIAL OBJECTIVE
Following are excerpts from Blake’s comments as prepared for delivery:
My bureau's single most important priority is supporting stabilization efforts in Afghanistan. The (U.S.) President, Secretary (of State Hillary) Clinton, Secretary (of Defence Robert) Gates and other members of the Cabinet have spent countless hours reviewing and honing our efforts in the region. I am pleased to say that Central Asia and India have played a critical role in supporting coalition efforts in the region.
The Northern Distribution Network -- the NDN -- runs through most of the Central Asian countries, supplies a growing percentage of provisions for our military effort and offers an alternative to the more widely used southern supply route through Pakistan.
The NDN increasingly offers the people of the Central Asian countries the opportunity to sell goods and services to NATO troops in Afghanistan, and we hope it can help catalyze greater trade and economic cooperation between Afghanistan and Central Asia.
Even beyond the NDN, the Central Asian nations have underpinned our efforts to fight the Taliban and rebuild Afghanistan. Kyrgyzstan hosts the Manas transit center, which facilitates troop transport and supports refueling missions for coalition forces in Afghanistan.
Electricity from Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan power the lights of Kabul, while the completion of a railhead in Mazar-e-Sharif this year will link the Uzbek and Afghan railways. Cultivating broad and long-lasting relationships with the Central Asian countries is the only way to ensure a common understanding and gain their long-term support for our efforts in Afghanistan.
TRANSIT AGREEMENT
We hope that the Afghanistan-Pakistan Transit Trade Agreement, which will enter into force on February 11, will also lead to increased trade between Afghanistan and its northern neighbors Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. Further afield, we also see the agreement as opening an opportunity for India and Pakistan to ramp up commercial engagement.
South Asian countries also have supported international efforts to rebuild Afghanistan. Bangladesh's largest NGO, Bangladesh Rehabilitation Assistance Committee (BRAC), runs activities in all 34 of Afghanistan’s provinces.
India has been a major contributor to reconstruction, with more than $1.3 billion in assistance so far, including the construction of highways, transmission lines, and the parliament building.
As a sign of our close partnership in the region, the President announced during his landmark visit to India in November (2010) that we would work with India on women's empowerment and capacity building in Afghanistan.
STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP
These projects with India in Afghanistan mark a small but important part of a significant new global development -- the emergence of a global strategic partnership between India and the United States.
As President Obama said in his November 8 speech to the Indian Parliament, "For the first time ever, our governments are working together across the whole range of common challenges that we face. Now, let me say it as clearly as I can: The U.S. not only welcomes India as a rising global power, we fervently support it, and we have worked to help make it a reality."
India's democracy, diversity and knowledge-based society make it special, a model of a tolerant pluralistic society in the region, and one that now actively seeks to work with the U.S. and others to help solve problems on a global level.
POWERHOUSE FOR GROWTH
Growing ties between our societies, our economies and our governments have helped sustain and accelerate India's rise. The nearly three million Indian-Americans (in the U.S.) provide a powerful connection between us, as do the more than 100,000 Indian students studying in U.S. universities.
Bilateral trade has more than tripled in the last decade, creating jobs and opportunities for both of us. Cooperation in counter-terrorism and defense modernization is at unprecedented levels.
The strength of India's economy makes it the powerhouse of South and Central Asia's growth. India's economy grew about 7.4 percent in 2010; one of the fastest in the world, and by 2025 India is expected to become the 3rd largest economy in the world, behind the United States and China. Its middle class now numbers 300 million and is expected to double over the next 20 years.
India's growing economic power has also made it among the fastest growing investors in the United States. Over the last decade, investment from India to the United States grew at an annualized rate of 53% reaching an estimated $4.4 billion in 2009.
Engagement across the U.S. and Indian governments has never been as robust and comprehensive as it is today. The President's dramatic visit to India highlighted the vast ties between our two countries, and our cooperation on critical issues ranging from climate change, to counter-terrorism, nonproliferation and energy diversity.
President Obama acknowledged India's growing role in the world by endorsing India for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.
PEOPLE-TO-PEOPLE LINKS
Our people-to-people linkages likewise have grown tremendously. During his stop in Mumbai, President Obama announced business and defense deals that exceeded $14.9 billion, with $9.5 billion in U.S. export content, supporting the creation of over 50,000 jobs.
We will build on the President's visit in the coming year through an intensive program of collaborative activities, high-profile visits and even greater engagement. Of particular note, we welcome the opportunity to work with India closely during its two-year tenure on the UN Security Council, which started January 1.
On the business side, Commerce Secretary (Gary) Locke will travel to India in February to attend Aero India, the biannual Indian aerial fair that has grown in importance as India itself has grown. India will soon announce the winners of a tender worth up to $12 billion to supply 126 medium multi-range combat aircraft -- a competition in which both Boeing and Lockheed Martin have entered their jets.
Secretary Clinton and other Cabinet officials will also travel to India this spring for the U.S.-India Strategic Dialogue, which oversees the entire spectrum of our cooperation.
I could go on into our joint activities to promote healthy families, reinforce food security in Africa, engage in regional consultations, develop innovative clean energy, bring monsoon forecasting data to farmers…and the list goes on. What we ultimately aim to do is develop the habits of cooperation that establish a partnership that will shape the 21st century in a way that bring peace and prosperity to the world.
INDIA'S NEIGHBOURS
A review of my bureau would not be complete without mentioning the other South Asian countries that neighbor India: Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bangladesh, Bhutan, and Maldives. The growth of India has overshadowed the progress made in all of these countries.
Bangladesh has experienced an average of 6% growth in GDP over the last 18 years, which has helped lift millions of Bangladeshis out of poverty. Houston, with its large Bangladeshi diaspora community, has undoubtedly contributed to the $11 billion in global remittances Bangladesh receives each year.
Bangladesh, with its inclusive growth model and newly stable government, represents another potential powerhouse in the neighborhood. The investigation into the Nobel prize-winning Grameen Bank, however, has raised concerns. Secretary Clinton has urged the government to maintain its democratic values and ensure its investigation is impartial and balanced.
Nepal and Sri Lanka have both ended terrible internal conflicts in the last few years, but each must now secure the peace. In Katmandu last week (January 6), the UN Mission for Nepal withdrew, putting responsibility for completing the peace process squarely in the hands of Nepal's fractious parties. The U.S. Government will continue to support the peace process.
I urged all the parties to continue to respect their own commitments under the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and said it is incumbent upon Nepal’s leaders to bring the peace process to a much needed conclusion. The U.S. was pleased that the parties reached agreement on arrangements to continue the monitoring of arms and the armies. We hope that same spirit will help the parties reach agreement on the integration and rehabilitation of Maoist army personnel into the Nepalese army and police, and on a new constitution.
GREAT DIVERSITY
While Sri Lanka's economy has thrived since the end of its brutal civil war, its reconciliation has proceeded more slowly. I hope that the government will act on the recommendations of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission it set up, as part of wider efforts that will be needed to help establish a lasting peace.
South Asia's smallest countries, Bhutan and Maldives, both experienced peaceful transitions to democracy in 2008. The Bhutanese model of Gross National Happiness has shaped new thinking about economic growth in developing countries, and Bhutan is on track to achieve all of its Millennium Development Goals.
And the moderate Muslim nation of the Maldives, now led by a former Amnesty International Prisoner of Conscience, has punched above its weight in the global debate on climate change, and thought of innovative ways to illustrate the plight of its sinking atolls. The Cabinet meeting it held underwater certainly captured the attention of the world.
The region's diversity opens many opportunities; it also presents a challenge in our efforts to encourage these disparate countries to work together. We have many obstacles to overcome still, but I hope that our effort to rebuild Afghanistan and develop deeper relations throughout the region will contribute to this vision.
2011 IDN-InDepthNews | Analysis That Matters
The writer has served as Sri Lanka's ambassador to Canada, Cuba, Mexico, and the USA. He was Chairman of the Commonwealth Select Committee on the media and development, Editor of the Ceylon 'Daily News' and the Ceylon 'Observer', and was for a time Features Editor and Foreign Affairs columnist of the Singapore 'Straits Times'. He is on the IDN editorial board and President of the Media Task Force of Global Cooperation Council.
Negative slogans, RUSI Kashmir Seminar and new dimensions
Negative slogans, RUSI Kashmir Seminar and new dimensions
Dr Shabir Choudhry 08 February 2011
People of State of Jammu and Kashmir are occupied, oppressed and forcibly divided, and more than one country is in possession of Kashmiri territory; yet struggle seems to be against one country – India. The other two countries namely Pakistan and China are perceived to be as supporters and friends of Kashmir.
The Kashmiri territory under the Chinese possession is uninhabited; and China’s role over Kashmir less visible and largely viewed as not anti people of Jammu and Kashmir. Despite the above fact, hitherto, China is not considered as a party to the Kashmir dispute, though they have bilateral agreements with both India and Pakistan.
There is tons of evidence that Pakistani governments were behind the tribal invasion which forced the maharaja of Kashmir to seek help from India, they were behind the Operation Gibraltar which led to the 1965 war, they were behind the militancy which started in 1988/89 that has caused enormous problems to people of Jammu and Kashmir in form of human rights abuses, death, destruction and forced migration. They have helped to create a culture of fear and intimidation and have actively promoted those forces which advance extremism, violence and hatred.
In view of what Pakistan has done to the Kashmir dispute (of course India’s record on Kashmir is also bad), how they have exploited our resources and how they have ensured that the Kashmir pot keeps on boiling without any resolution, people of Jammu and Kashmir should have known true designs of Pakistan. However, despite all the above and much more, many people of Jammu and Kashmir, especially in Pakistani Administered Kashmir, regard Pakistan as a ‘friend.’ If that is so, question is do we need any enemies? Oh Allah, save us from such friends?
On advice of Pakistani agencies, their training and their gun we started militancy against India; and we have lost more than 70 thousands people, and thousands are unaccounted for and thousands are still in jails. We have learnt that a borrowed gun and violence will not lead to independence, but it will surely result in more deaths and more human rights abuses.
Therefore, we should abandon violence in all parts of the State of Jammu and Kashmir; and start peaceful struggle against both countries. Struggle against only India, peaceful or violent, will reinforce that impression that all this is done on behest of Pakistan; and struggle is not for independence, but in disguise of independence and religion it is struggle to make Kashmir part of Pakistan.
By use of gun we cannot even win independence against one occupier; to think that by use of gun we can win against two occupiers is foolish. We need to change our strategy and reach out to people of those who occupy us. We need to tell them that South Asia needs peace and stability in order to face challenges of the 21st century; but we cannot have peace and stability if the Kashmir dispute is not resolved.
What India is doing in Kashmir is not liked or approved by all Indians. We need to reach out to these people and explain to them that the Kashmir dispute is holding progress of India and Pakistan and destabilising entire south Asia.
But how can we win their minds and hearts when people use this slogan: ‘Indian dogs out’. This slogan is given to youths of Kashmir by those who want the Kashmir pot to keep on boiling; and those who want to promote extremism, communalism and hatred. They want to ensure that gulf of hatred becomes so wide that there is no peace in the region.
People have every right to express their anger against wrongdoings of India in Kashmir, but by using negative and offensive slogans we are not advancing cause of people of Jammu and Kashmir. We are giving this message that we are only targeting one country at the behest of another country; and that we are not civilised enough to use acceptable language to advance our cause.
We need to understand that by spreading hatred we cannot resolve the Kashmir dispute, but we can surely divide the communities even further. Also we need to remember that ordinary citizen of India who lives in a remote village and struggling to earn bread and butter for his family is not a culprit. He is not an oppressor, may be he is also oppressed and seeking for justice.
No community or nation is bad; it is individuals who are bad. There are many good Indians who do not agree with what military is doing Kashmir; and many have spoken out against this. Also there are more than 170 million Muslims in India, and among them could be very pious people and Walies of Allah, and by calling them ‘dogs’ are we doing any favour to our struggle or making them our friends?
In my opinion those who gave us this slogan are not friends of Kashmir, as they want to spread hatred and widen gulf of difference. But all those who use this slogan are not culprits, because some of them do not fully understand implications of this and wrongly think they are doing a service to the cause of Kashmir by using abusive language against India.
RUSI Conference on Kashmir
A famous British Think Tank RUSI (Royal United Services Institute) organised a conference on Kashmir on 25 January 2011, with the title of: Asian Powers in Kashmir.
Prominent leaders, writers, analysts, retired Generals, Ministers, Professors and academics from America, Kashmir, India, Pakistan and Britain were present. Alexander Neil, Head of Asia Security Programme at RUSI was kind enough to extend a complimentary invitation to me. It was very well managed event; and a lot of hard work and resources were utilised to make it successful.
The conference had four sessions and all speakers presented their view point without fear and intimidation. People differed with each other, but no one shouted at anyone or used abusive language. Among the speakers included a retired Major General of India who served in Kashmir for many years. He put forward his view point, but no one shouted at him or called him ‘an Indian dog’ or ‘Indian butcher’.
Main reason for this is because we were all sitting in a civilised gathering. It was expected of us to behave like civilised people and present our views in civilised manner. The Indian General was asked many questions during question - answer session. Those who asked questions were polite and respectful and so was the General in his replies.
Just imagine if someone from the audience had called him ‘an Indian dog’. How would other people listening to this abuse have reacted? And how would the General have felt? Would that have won us Kashmiris any friends or advanced the cause of our independence?
By all means criticise India for their Kashmir policy, condemn human rights abuses, but do all that in a civilised and internationally acceptable manner. Also we need to understand that India is not the only player in Kashmir, there are others as well; and we must not shy away to criticise them for their wrong doings, as one cannot be selective in criticising human rights abuses and wrong doings.
I agree, at times, one could get carried away with emotions, especially when a close relative has become a victim of human rights abuse. We have to learn to control our emotions and energy, and channel it for the betterment of the Kashmir cause. If swearing India or struggle against India alone is the way forward then people can count on my support as well, but I know that will be a step in wrong direction.
With age, education and experience comes maturity in approach; and my request to people is to use their wisdom and not emotions to advance the cause of Kashmir. We need to carefully watch in what direction is the ‘struggle’ going; and is it still our struggle or the agenda has been hijacked by others.
We also need to take note of new developments on the Kashmir dispute. To date there are only three parties to the Kashmir dispute, namely people of Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan and India. Some quarters are making concerted efforts to make China a party to the Kashmir dispute; and some people view the RUSI conference in that light.
In my view the Kashmir dispute is already very complicated, and it has many dimensions. Unwarranted entry of mighty China in the ring would lead to new problems and new challenges, not only for the people of Jammu and Kashmir but for the entire region, and this move must be opposed.
Writer is Head Diplomatic Committee of Kashmir National Party, political analyst and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs.Email:drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com
View my blog and web: www.drshabirchoudhry.blogspot.com
www.k4kashmir.com
Dr Shabir Choudhry 08 February 2011
People of State of Jammu and Kashmir are occupied, oppressed and forcibly divided, and more than one country is in possession of Kashmiri territory; yet struggle seems to be against one country – India. The other two countries namely Pakistan and China are perceived to be as supporters and friends of Kashmir.
The Kashmiri territory under the Chinese possession is uninhabited; and China’s role over Kashmir less visible and largely viewed as not anti people of Jammu and Kashmir. Despite the above fact, hitherto, China is not considered as a party to the Kashmir dispute, though they have bilateral agreements with both India and Pakistan.
There is tons of evidence that Pakistani governments were behind the tribal invasion which forced the maharaja of Kashmir to seek help from India, they were behind the Operation Gibraltar which led to the 1965 war, they were behind the militancy which started in 1988/89 that has caused enormous problems to people of Jammu and Kashmir in form of human rights abuses, death, destruction and forced migration. They have helped to create a culture of fear and intimidation and have actively promoted those forces which advance extremism, violence and hatred.
In view of what Pakistan has done to the Kashmir dispute (of course India’s record on Kashmir is also bad), how they have exploited our resources and how they have ensured that the Kashmir pot keeps on boiling without any resolution, people of Jammu and Kashmir should have known true designs of Pakistan. However, despite all the above and much more, many people of Jammu and Kashmir, especially in Pakistani Administered Kashmir, regard Pakistan as a ‘friend.’ If that is so, question is do we need any enemies? Oh Allah, save us from such friends?
On advice of Pakistani agencies, their training and their gun we started militancy against India; and we have lost more than 70 thousands people, and thousands are unaccounted for and thousands are still in jails. We have learnt that a borrowed gun and violence will not lead to independence, but it will surely result in more deaths and more human rights abuses.
Therefore, we should abandon violence in all parts of the State of Jammu and Kashmir; and start peaceful struggle against both countries. Struggle against only India, peaceful or violent, will reinforce that impression that all this is done on behest of Pakistan; and struggle is not for independence, but in disguise of independence and religion it is struggle to make Kashmir part of Pakistan.
By use of gun we cannot even win independence against one occupier; to think that by use of gun we can win against two occupiers is foolish. We need to change our strategy and reach out to people of those who occupy us. We need to tell them that South Asia needs peace and stability in order to face challenges of the 21st century; but we cannot have peace and stability if the Kashmir dispute is not resolved.
What India is doing in Kashmir is not liked or approved by all Indians. We need to reach out to these people and explain to them that the Kashmir dispute is holding progress of India and Pakistan and destabilising entire south Asia.
But how can we win their minds and hearts when people use this slogan: ‘Indian dogs out’. This slogan is given to youths of Kashmir by those who want the Kashmir pot to keep on boiling; and those who want to promote extremism, communalism and hatred. They want to ensure that gulf of hatred becomes so wide that there is no peace in the region.
People have every right to express their anger against wrongdoings of India in Kashmir, but by using negative and offensive slogans we are not advancing cause of people of Jammu and Kashmir. We are giving this message that we are only targeting one country at the behest of another country; and that we are not civilised enough to use acceptable language to advance our cause.
We need to understand that by spreading hatred we cannot resolve the Kashmir dispute, but we can surely divide the communities even further. Also we need to remember that ordinary citizen of India who lives in a remote village and struggling to earn bread and butter for his family is not a culprit. He is not an oppressor, may be he is also oppressed and seeking for justice.
No community or nation is bad; it is individuals who are bad. There are many good Indians who do not agree with what military is doing Kashmir; and many have spoken out against this. Also there are more than 170 million Muslims in India, and among them could be very pious people and Walies of Allah, and by calling them ‘dogs’ are we doing any favour to our struggle or making them our friends?
In my opinion those who gave us this slogan are not friends of Kashmir, as they want to spread hatred and widen gulf of difference. But all those who use this slogan are not culprits, because some of them do not fully understand implications of this and wrongly think they are doing a service to the cause of Kashmir by using abusive language against India.
RUSI Conference on Kashmir
A famous British Think Tank RUSI (Royal United Services Institute) organised a conference on Kashmir on 25 January 2011, with the title of: Asian Powers in Kashmir.
Prominent leaders, writers, analysts, retired Generals, Ministers, Professors and academics from America, Kashmir, India, Pakistan and Britain were present. Alexander Neil, Head of Asia Security Programme at RUSI was kind enough to extend a complimentary invitation to me. It was very well managed event; and a lot of hard work and resources were utilised to make it successful.
The conference had four sessions and all speakers presented their view point without fear and intimidation. People differed with each other, but no one shouted at anyone or used abusive language. Among the speakers included a retired Major General of India who served in Kashmir for many years. He put forward his view point, but no one shouted at him or called him ‘an Indian dog’ or ‘Indian butcher’.
Main reason for this is because we were all sitting in a civilised gathering. It was expected of us to behave like civilised people and present our views in civilised manner. The Indian General was asked many questions during question - answer session. Those who asked questions were polite and respectful and so was the General in his replies.
Just imagine if someone from the audience had called him ‘an Indian dog’. How would other people listening to this abuse have reacted? And how would the General have felt? Would that have won us Kashmiris any friends or advanced the cause of our independence?
By all means criticise India for their Kashmir policy, condemn human rights abuses, but do all that in a civilised and internationally acceptable manner. Also we need to understand that India is not the only player in Kashmir, there are others as well; and we must not shy away to criticise them for their wrong doings, as one cannot be selective in criticising human rights abuses and wrong doings.
I agree, at times, one could get carried away with emotions, especially when a close relative has become a victim of human rights abuse. We have to learn to control our emotions and energy, and channel it for the betterment of the Kashmir cause. If swearing India or struggle against India alone is the way forward then people can count on my support as well, but I know that will be a step in wrong direction.
With age, education and experience comes maturity in approach; and my request to people is to use their wisdom and not emotions to advance the cause of Kashmir. We need to carefully watch in what direction is the ‘struggle’ going; and is it still our struggle or the agenda has been hijacked by others.
We also need to take note of new developments on the Kashmir dispute. To date there are only three parties to the Kashmir dispute, namely people of Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan and India. Some quarters are making concerted efforts to make China a party to the Kashmir dispute; and some people view the RUSI conference in that light.
In my view the Kashmir dispute is already very complicated, and it has many dimensions. Unwarranted entry of mighty China in the ring would lead to new problems and new challenges, not only for the people of Jammu and Kashmir but for the entire region, and this move must be opposed.
Writer is Head Diplomatic Committee of Kashmir National Party, political analyst and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs.Email:drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com
View my blog and web: www.drshabirchoudhry.blogspot.com
www.k4kashmir.com
Wednesday, 2 February 2011
Seminar on Gilgit Baltistan in House of Lords
Seminar on Gilgit Baltistan in House of Lords
Baroness Emma Nicholson has arranged a seminar in House of Lords, details are as follows:
1. Title: Gilgit Baltistan: The Emergence of China
2. Date: Friday 11 February
3. Time 12.30 sharp
Those willing to attend or take part in it can contact Dr Shabir Choudhry on:
Email: drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com
Tel: 07790942471
Baroness Emma Nicholson has arranged a seminar in House of Lords, details are as follows:
1. Title: Gilgit Baltistan: The Emergence of China
2. Date: Friday 11 February
3. Time 12.30 sharp
Those willing to attend or take part in it can contact Dr Shabir Choudhry on:
Email: drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com
Tel: 07790942471
Tuesday, 1 February 2011
Change of policy not possible
6. Change of policy not possible
Dr Shabir Choudhry 02 February 2011
In a democratic society everyone has a right to hold an opinion and express it. We don’t have to agree with views of others, but we have no right to insult others or be aggressive to them just because our views are different to others.
Junaid Qureshi, I am honoured with your analyses and friendly advice which is logical. You are young and an educated man, and have every right to advise me and others, as long as you are respectful and do not attach labels against name of those people who disagree with you.
My generation, which includes your father, was persuaded (not necessarily all of us) that they were azad (independent) and only problem was the Indian occupation on the other side of the LOC. They were persuaded to take gun from Pakistan, get training and arms from them and use that against India. Amanullah Khan preached that once India leaves Kashmir they will automatically get azadi of areas under Pakistan.
Those of us who were not in militancy were persuaded to propagate against India; and we did that sincerely hoping that we were serving the cause of united and independent Jammu and Kashmir.
Despite fall out with Amanullah Khan, we continued with this policy of exposing India only, until we were persuaded by our none South Asian friends that we were only promoting a Pakistani agenda on Kashmir, as we were giving message to the international community that all was ‘rosy’ on the Pakistani side and problem was only on the Indian side.
Pakistani government, their agencies, their media, their political, human rights and community based parties; and all pro Pakistan and nationalist Kashmiris worked as a team to expose India. With united effort we were successful in exposing India, but damage was done to the Kashmir cause as it was understood by other countries that Kashmiri parties were advancing agenda of secret agencies of Pakistan; and that they were happy with Pakistan.
We were told by these none South Asian friends that as far as the international community was concerned only the Indian side of Kashmir was disputed; and that people of Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan were happy with Pakistan. They said whatever solution of the Kashmir dispute it will be related to the Indian side of Kashmir only as that is where the trouble was. They said if we wanted to include Pakistani side of Jammu and Kashmir in the future talks then we should make this area disputed as well by showing that you people were not happy with Pakistan.
Since that date - 1997/8 - we have worked hard to make areas under Pakistan disputed as well. We paid special attention to Gilgit Baltistan, and thank Allah now these areas are also perceived as disputed; and for this we have paid a big price.
During all this time we never stopped anyone to propagate against India. We have never supported India’s claim to Kashmir. We have never supported accession to India. We have never said there were no human rights abuses. I still, from time to time, speak out against human rights abuses in the Valley and criticise India’s Kashmir policy; and my policy, in your view and in view of my critics is not ‘balanced’. Some say I deserve to be accused, opposed and labelled for advancing this policy.
Question is why those Kashmiris who only speak against India, and do not even consider areas under Pakistan as occupied and do not speak one word about these areas or about Pakistan are promoted as holy cows. Why they are promoted as leaders and loyal Kashmiris?
It was wrong policy to put all eggs in one basket and try to liberate the Valley only. It was illogical. Our struggle was, and is, on the Pakistani side of the LOC and your struggle is on that side of the divide. Similarly people of Gilgit Baltistan have to fight against those who occupy them; and people of the Valley cannot and will not be able to come help them. We can support each other; but we cannot fight each other’s fight – one slave cannot help the other slave.
Apart from that India’s Kashmir policy is exposed; what more can you say about the Indian policy on Kashmir. However, the Pakistani policy on Kashmir is disguised in name of religion, brotherhood and friendship; and that hypocrisy must be exposed. Also make note that around 95% of the Kashmiri political activists only expose India and it looks that Pakistan and pro Pakistan lobby cannot even tolerate opposition of this 5%.
In view of the above, I am afraid I cannot abandon my policy; and will continue my jihad of exposing forces of extremism, violence and hatred. In doing so, I know I will face opposition and criticism; but I can assure you that I will fight my corner.
Writer is Head Diplomatic Committee of Kashmir National Party, political analyst and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs.Email:drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com
View my blog and web: www.drshabirchoudhry.blogspot.com
www.k4kashmir.com
Dr Shabir Choudhry 02 February 2011
In a democratic society everyone has a right to hold an opinion and express it. We don’t have to agree with views of others, but we have no right to insult others or be aggressive to them just because our views are different to others.
Junaid Qureshi, I am honoured with your analyses and friendly advice which is logical. You are young and an educated man, and have every right to advise me and others, as long as you are respectful and do not attach labels against name of those people who disagree with you.
My generation, which includes your father, was persuaded (not necessarily all of us) that they were azad (independent) and only problem was the Indian occupation on the other side of the LOC. They were persuaded to take gun from Pakistan, get training and arms from them and use that against India. Amanullah Khan preached that once India leaves Kashmir they will automatically get azadi of areas under Pakistan.
Those of us who were not in militancy were persuaded to propagate against India; and we did that sincerely hoping that we were serving the cause of united and independent Jammu and Kashmir.
Despite fall out with Amanullah Khan, we continued with this policy of exposing India only, until we were persuaded by our none South Asian friends that we were only promoting a Pakistani agenda on Kashmir, as we were giving message to the international community that all was ‘rosy’ on the Pakistani side and problem was only on the Indian side.
Pakistani government, their agencies, their media, their political, human rights and community based parties; and all pro Pakistan and nationalist Kashmiris worked as a team to expose India. With united effort we were successful in exposing India, but damage was done to the Kashmir cause as it was understood by other countries that Kashmiri parties were advancing agenda of secret agencies of Pakistan; and that they were happy with Pakistan.
We were told by these none South Asian friends that as far as the international community was concerned only the Indian side of Kashmir was disputed; and that people of Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan were happy with Pakistan. They said whatever solution of the Kashmir dispute it will be related to the Indian side of Kashmir only as that is where the trouble was. They said if we wanted to include Pakistani side of Jammu and Kashmir in the future talks then we should make this area disputed as well by showing that you people were not happy with Pakistan.
Since that date - 1997/8 - we have worked hard to make areas under Pakistan disputed as well. We paid special attention to Gilgit Baltistan, and thank Allah now these areas are also perceived as disputed; and for this we have paid a big price.
During all this time we never stopped anyone to propagate against India. We have never supported India’s claim to Kashmir. We have never supported accession to India. We have never said there were no human rights abuses. I still, from time to time, speak out against human rights abuses in the Valley and criticise India’s Kashmir policy; and my policy, in your view and in view of my critics is not ‘balanced’. Some say I deserve to be accused, opposed and labelled for advancing this policy.
Question is why those Kashmiris who only speak against India, and do not even consider areas under Pakistan as occupied and do not speak one word about these areas or about Pakistan are promoted as holy cows. Why they are promoted as leaders and loyal Kashmiris?
It was wrong policy to put all eggs in one basket and try to liberate the Valley only. It was illogical. Our struggle was, and is, on the Pakistani side of the LOC and your struggle is on that side of the divide. Similarly people of Gilgit Baltistan have to fight against those who occupy them; and people of the Valley cannot and will not be able to come help them. We can support each other; but we cannot fight each other’s fight – one slave cannot help the other slave.
Apart from that India’s Kashmir policy is exposed; what more can you say about the Indian policy on Kashmir. However, the Pakistani policy on Kashmir is disguised in name of religion, brotherhood and friendship; and that hypocrisy must be exposed. Also make note that around 95% of the Kashmiri political activists only expose India and it looks that Pakistan and pro Pakistan lobby cannot even tolerate opposition of this 5%.
In view of the above, I am afraid I cannot abandon my policy; and will continue my jihad of exposing forces of extremism, violence and hatred. In doing so, I know I will face opposition and criticism; but I can assure you that I will fight my corner.
Writer is Head Diplomatic Committee of Kashmir National Party, political analyst and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs.Email:drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com
View my blog and web: www.drshabirchoudhry.blogspot.com
www.k4kashmir.com
Quote of Dr Shabir Choudhry
Tragedy is not that we are occupied and forcibly divided, in my opinion; real tragedy is that people of Jammu and Kashmir have lost sense of direction and consciousness of being enslaved and occupied. Despite occupation, forced division and denial of fundamental human rights, they still don’t know what they want. Perhaps people who are forced to live under occupation for centuries turn out to be like this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)