‘Liberate Muzaffarabad first and not Srinagar’
Dr Shabir Choudhry 16 April 2011
It is an offence to support Indian cricket team in Pakistani Occupied Kashmir; and those who supported the Indian team in the recent World Cricket Cup, especially when they played Pakistani team in the semi finals were arrested for this ‘crime’. Two stalwarts of National Awami Party from Dadyal, district Mirpur, namely Imran Shahzad and Naheem Iqbal Khawaja were arrested for supporting the Indian team.
Kashmiri nationalists are very angry over this, and people are expressing their anger against Pakistan and their oppressive policies. Secretary General of Kashmir National Party, Yasin Anjumm while commenting on this intolerable situation said: ‘Liberate Muzaffarabad first and not Srinagar’.
In the past some Kashmiri parties groomed and supported by Pakistani secret agencies gave this slogan and policy to the people of Pakistani side of Jammu and Kashmir that they should first liberate Srinagar. By implication it meant that only Indian side of Jammu and Kashmir is occupied (Pakistani side of Kashmir is free) and only that should be liberated.
This policy was not only illogical, but it was also given by those who occupy two regions of Jammu and Kashmir; and their aim was to divert attention away from their own crimes and use sentiments of people of Jammu and Kashmir to promote a proxy war. Net result of this erroneous and out of place policy was enormous damage to the Kashmiri struggle, and despite death of more than fifty thousands men, women and children, rapes, imprisonments, custodial deaths, misery and suffering of people we have not moved one inch forward.
Despite the above, Pakistani secret agencies and their agents in Pakistan and Kashmir still want to pursue the same redundant policy. They want to promote Kashmir as a religious dispute, and to them it could only be resolved by use of gun, even though its use has brought havoc to the people of Jammu and Kashmir; and nearly brought India and Pakistan to a full scale war.
Last week my first cousin Mohammed Iqbal Choudhry died in London. He was a successful businessman and a decent human being. His death is a big loss to us all. My other cousin who is a Public Prosecutor in London came to my house with her husband for condolences. Her husband, Choudhry Arshad Mehmood, is highly educated man with no interest in politics or the Kashmiri struggle. But before he left he gave me a big surprise by asking me: ‘brother when are we going to get independence from Pakistan?
I said to him before we reach that stage where a nation can get independence we need to understand true nature of the Kashmir dispute, and develop our consciousness of being enslaved and occupied on both sides of the Line of Control. However, it is encouraging to note that more and more educated people are now realising that the Kashmir dispute was created by Pakistan; and it is the Pakistani establishment which is the biggest obstacle in the resolution of the Kashmir dispute.
I further said people of Jammu and Kashmir need to understand the game plan of the Pakistani ruling elite; and they need to know that this selfish and egocentric people have no love for people of Jammu and Kashmir. They want to use the Kashmir dispute to advance their own agenda; and divide people in name of religion, ethnicity and region.
Both my cousin and her husband said they have developed consciousness of being Kashmiris because of the attitude and discrimination of some Pakistani people. Now we realise that we are Kashmiris and in the recent census (in Britain), for the first time, we crossed Pakistan in the ethnicity column and put our ethnicity as Kashmiri.
To me this was a step forward. If this trend continues and people of Jammu and Kashmir understand the real situation and real culprits who have back stabbed our movement then they will start their struggle against injustice, oppression and occupation.
In this context I remember Baba Jaan a leader from Gilgit Baltistan who said to KNP delegation to that region: ‘We are part of the Kashmir dispute, but all regions are occupied and we all have to struggle against those who occupy us. India is an occupier on that side and people are struggling against them. We have no problem from India on this side, so our struggle cannot be and should not be against India. Our struggle should be against the country which has its big boot on our neck. We don’t want any lessons from anyone that we support this or that struggle, or adopt this ideology or that ideology; our first priority is to remove that big boot from neck that we can breathe.’
What Baba Jaan said makes a lot of sense. What India is doing on that side is wrong, of course, there is a large army and human rights abuses taking place, but people are resisting the Indian rule and they get support from people of Jammu and Kashmir on this side, from Pakistan, from OIC and many other sources. Above all we DO NOT stop them to fight the Indian rule there. We don’t urge them to stop fighting those who inflict pain and suffering there; but unfortunately we people on the Pakistani side of Kashmir DO NOT get the same right to resist those who occupy us and plunder our resources and do injustice to us.
When oppressed people of Jammu and Kashmir living on the Pakistani side of the divide raise their voices against the Pakistani occupation and injustice, even people of the Indian side of Kashmir criticise us, as they think the resistance should be against India only; and they want everyone to concentrate on the problems which they face.
That strategy is wrong and out of step with reality. This policy or strategy was designed by secret agencies of Pakistan and passed on to some Kashmiri organisations; and it is sad that these Kashmiri organisations might forget to follow Quran and Hadees but they very faithfully follow policies of the secret agencies of Pakistan, hence complicating the Kashmir dispute even further.
Pakistani Occupied Kashmir, known as Azad Kashmir or free Kashmir is a slave of ruling elite of Pakistan which has mortgaged national pride and sovereignty of their country to the Americans and some other countries for the sake of some material and political gains. Pakistani ruling elite has worked very hard to bring Pakistan to its present situation where the country is in chaos and no one seems to be safe and future of Pakistan as a nation state is very bleak
Despite very serious economic and political problems, raging civil war in various parts and uncertain future, Pakistani establishment ensured that their grip on Gilgit Baltistan and POK remains firm. They have Kashmiri collaborators and opportunists to help and further fortify the Pakistani rule in these regions.
They should know whether people of Jammu and Kashmir get two options or three options to determine their future, under the UN Resolutions, which Pakistan likes to talk about give people the right to join India and propagate in favour of that as well. Some people of the Indian side of Jammu and Kashmir openly speak in support of Pakistan, hoist Pakistani flag and burn the Indian flag and they are not arrested for that, however, they are severely punished for using violence to advance their agenda.
Corrupt and oppressive system which does not allow people to even support a cricket team could not be expected to let people have equality and right of expression in their colony. They have not learnt from their past mistakes. It was the wrong and oppressive policy of Pakistani ruling elite which resulted in fall of Dhaka, independence of Bangladesh and surrender of more than 90 thousand soldiers. It is wrong policy of the ruling elite which has forced people to pick up gun against them in Balochistan and other parts of Pakistan.
Surely it is their wrong policy which has turned people of Jammu and Kashmir against Pakistan and their oppressive and unjust rule; and if there is a plebiscite in near future vast majority will vote in favour of United and independent Jammu and Kashmir. It is because of this reason the Pakistani ruling elite want to ensure that the Kashmir dispute is not resolved, as it has become a bread and butter for some.
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
Saturday, 16 April 2011
Wednesday, 13 April 2011
Kashmiri militants watch talks but ready to fight
Kashmiri militants watch talks but ready to fight
By Kamran Haider
MUZAFFARABAD, Pakistan | Wed Apr 13, 2011 3:16am EDT
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/13/us-pakistan-kashmir-idUSTRE73C0ZB20110413
(Reuters) - Militants on the Pakistan side of divided Kashmir say they will give new talks with India a chance but they have little faith they will succeed and believe it is only a matter of time before they will have to fight again.
For now, many of them are engaged in peaceful pursuits such as small businesses, teaching or social welfare, and they face severe Pakistanirestrictions on crossing the so-called Line of Control (LoC) separating Pakistani and Indian Kashmir.
"We have not given up arms, jihad, but are just giving another chance to talks," Abdul Aziz Alvi, chief of Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD) in Pakistani Kashmir, told Reuters.
The JuD is an Islamist charity which the United Nations says is a front for Lashkar-e-Taiba, one the main militant groups fighting Indian rule in Kashmir and blamed for a 2008 attack on the Indian city of Mumbai that killed 166 people.
"If India does not understand the language of negotiation, then guns will start speaking," Alvi said as he was attending a protest rally against Indian plans to build dams in its part of Kashmir.
India and Pakistan last month agreed to restart comprehensive talks which were called off by India after the attacks on Mumbai by militants based in Pakistan.
Mostly Muslim Kashmir has been at the heart of rivalry between the neighbors since British-ruled India was divided into independent India and Pakistan in 1947.
The Himalayan region, which both countries claim in full but rule in part, was the cause of two of the three wars they have fought since then.
India has long accused Pakistan of fomenting an insurgency in which nearly 50,000 people have been killed since it broke out in 1989. Pakistan denies the charge.
The bitterness generated by the dispute has an impact far beyond Kashmir's snow-capped mountains and lush valleys, including inAfghanistan, where many analysts say India and Pakistan are waging a proxy war.
India supports the U.S.-backed Kabul government while Pakistan, worried about hostile neighbors on both borders, secretly backs the Taliban in the hope of eventually ensuring a friendly Afghan government, analysts say.
Since 2002, the Kashmir militants' movement over the LoC has fallen significantly, partly because India has fenced the previously porous frontier but also because Pakistan has imposed tough restrictions on the movement of the fighters.
CONTROLLING THE LINE OF CONTROL
"There's been a huge impact. Previously, about 50 mujahideen (Islamist fighters) used to cross to occupied Kashmir a month, now hardly five are able to do so," said Abu Huzaifa Kashmiri, a member of the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen militant group, who now runs a hotel in Muzaffarabad, capital of Pakistani Kashmir.
Pakistan has always denied arming the militants and sending them to fight Indian forces but the plight of Kashmir's Muslims is an emotive issue in Muslim Pakistan and all governments have trumpeted their political support for the separatists in what it calls Indian-occupied Kashmir.
But Pakistan has been under U.S. pressure to stop militant attacks into India and with the talks with India set to resume, it is keeping the militants on a short leash.
"Their activities are under watch," said a security official in the region said.
But some militants have gone rogue and the chances of another attack in India, which could not only scupper the talks and even raise the prospect of a clash between the nuclear-armed neighbors, is possible.
"There are chances that some rogue elements come out and conduct operations like Mumbai, but the (militant) leadership does not seem ready for any confrontation with the (Pakistani) establishment," said defense analyst Hasan Askari Rizvi.
"It has to be seen how the militant leadership and establishment control these rogue elements."
A senior militant commander, who declined to be identified, said the failure of India and Pakistan to settle the dispute would ultimately benefit the militants.
"The breakdown of the talks will give impetus to our movement and justify our argument that India is not serious about resolving the issue but uses talks to drag it out."
Uzair Raza, a militant from Indian Kashmir, sitting in a tea-shop in the Manikpiyan refugee camp on a Pakistani bank of the Jhelum River, said hundreds of new fighters could be raised if necessary.
"If we are not free, our land is occupied, then why should we care about peace? We'll fight for our rights," he said.
Tens of thousand Kashmiris have migrated to Pakistan from Indian Kashmir since the insurgency began. Many, like Naseema Bibi, 50, say they will not go home until they get "freedom."
"I don't mind begging here but I'll not live under India's slavery," said Bibi, who runs a vegetable shop in the camp near Muzaffarabad.
(Editing by Chris Allbritton and Robert Birsel)
By Kamran Haider
MUZAFFARABAD, Pakistan | Wed Apr 13, 2011 3:16am EDT
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/13/us-pakistan-kashmir-idUSTRE73C0ZB20110413
(Reuters) - Militants on the Pakistan side of divided Kashmir say they will give new talks with India a chance but they have little faith they will succeed and believe it is only a matter of time before they will have to fight again.
For now, many of them are engaged in peaceful pursuits such as small businesses, teaching or social welfare, and they face severe Pakistanirestrictions on crossing the so-called Line of Control (LoC) separating Pakistani and Indian Kashmir.
"We have not given up arms, jihad, but are just giving another chance to talks," Abdul Aziz Alvi, chief of Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD) in Pakistani Kashmir, told Reuters.
The JuD is an Islamist charity which the United Nations says is a front for Lashkar-e-Taiba, one the main militant groups fighting Indian rule in Kashmir and blamed for a 2008 attack on the Indian city of Mumbai that killed 166 people.
"If India does not understand the language of negotiation, then guns will start speaking," Alvi said as he was attending a protest rally against Indian plans to build dams in its part of Kashmir.
India and Pakistan last month agreed to restart comprehensive talks which were called off by India after the attacks on Mumbai by militants based in Pakistan.
Mostly Muslim Kashmir has been at the heart of rivalry between the neighbors since British-ruled India was divided into independent India and Pakistan in 1947.
The Himalayan region, which both countries claim in full but rule in part, was the cause of two of the three wars they have fought since then.
India has long accused Pakistan of fomenting an insurgency in which nearly 50,000 people have been killed since it broke out in 1989. Pakistan denies the charge.
The bitterness generated by the dispute has an impact far beyond Kashmir's snow-capped mountains and lush valleys, including inAfghanistan, where many analysts say India and Pakistan are waging a proxy war.
India supports the U.S.-backed Kabul government while Pakistan, worried about hostile neighbors on both borders, secretly backs the Taliban in the hope of eventually ensuring a friendly Afghan government, analysts say.
Since 2002, the Kashmir militants' movement over the LoC has fallen significantly, partly because India has fenced the previously porous frontier but also because Pakistan has imposed tough restrictions on the movement of the fighters.
CONTROLLING THE LINE OF CONTROL
"There's been a huge impact. Previously, about 50 mujahideen (Islamist fighters) used to cross to occupied Kashmir a month, now hardly five are able to do so," said Abu Huzaifa Kashmiri, a member of the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen militant group, who now runs a hotel in Muzaffarabad, capital of Pakistani Kashmir.
Pakistan has always denied arming the militants and sending them to fight Indian forces but the plight of Kashmir's Muslims is an emotive issue in Muslim Pakistan and all governments have trumpeted their political support for the separatists in what it calls Indian-occupied Kashmir.
But Pakistan has been under U.S. pressure to stop militant attacks into India and with the talks with India set to resume, it is keeping the militants on a short leash.
"Their activities are under watch," said a security official in the region said.
But some militants have gone rogue and the chances of another attack in India, which could not only scupper the talks and even raise the prospect of a clash between the nuclear-armed neighbors, is possible.
"There are chances that some rogue elements come out and conduct operations like Mumbai, but the (militant) leadership does not seem ready for any confrontation with the (Pakistani) establishment," said defense analyst Hasan Askari Rizvi.
"It has to be seen how the militant leadership and establishment control these rogue elements."
A senior militant commander, who declined to be identified, said the failure of India and Pakistan to settle the dispute would ultimately benefit the militants.
"The breakdown of the talks will give impetus to our movement and justify our argument that India is not serious about resolving the issue but uses talks to drag it out."
Uzair Raza, a militant from Indian Kashmir, sitting in a tea-shop in the Manikpiyan refugee camp on a Pakistani bank of the Jhelum River, said hundreds of new fighters could be raised if necessary.
"If we are not free, our land is occupied, then why should we care about peace? We'll fight for our rights," he said.
Tens of thousand Kashmiris have migrated to Pakistan from Indian Kashmir since the insurgency began. Many, like Naseema Bibi, 50, say they will not go home until they get "freedom."
"I don't mind begging here but I'll not live under India's slavery," said Bibi, who runs a vegetable shop in the camp near Muzaffarabad.
(Editing by Chris Allbritton and Robert Birsel)
Pakistan and India Are Competing for Afghanistan
Pakistan and India Are Competing for Afghanistan
Modern Afghanistan is a place where the interests of global and regional powers clash, especially those of states like India and Pakistan. New Delhi and Islamabad have moved their years-long standoff to a new space—Afghanistan—and they now aspire to take an active role in shaping its future. And the Pakistanis and the Indians each have their own plans for Afghanistan’s future.
Pakistan in Afghanistan
In addressing Islamabad’s positions, we need first to emphasize that Pakistan is key to resolving the situation in Afghanistan. There are extremist sanctuaries in Pakistan’s border regions, and it appears that only the Pakistani military can defeat them. In addition, Pakistan wants to participate in any negotiations affecting Afghanistan’s future, and it is fully capable of disrupting a peace agreement or a negotiation process among the Hamid Karzai government, NATO forces and the Taliban. For example, attempts by Afghan authorities to hold separate discussions with the Taliban failed primarily due to the position taken by Pakistan. Pakistan’s intelligence service arrested the Taliban leader Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar as soon as it became known that he was preparing for peace talks with Kabul without Islamabad being involved. In the future, Pakistan will obviously not allow anyone to hold talks with the Taliban unless Islamabad plays the central role of mediator.
Second, the Pakistani military considers Afghanistan to lie within its sphere of influence. Islamabad looks upon Afghanistan as its backyard, and Pakistan is doing everything it can to keep it that way. Pakistan’s military elite sees Afghanistan as its strategic resource, principally a space where it can deploy non-government formations and terrorist groups that act in Pakistan’s interests. In addition, Afghanistan gives Pakistan strategic depth. An Afghan regime loyal to Islamabad could provide space to maneuver and regroup forces in the event of a conflict with India. Afghanistan would be strategically important to the Pakistani government should there be a military showdown with India.
Third, Pakistan cannot allow a regime loyal to New Delhi to emerge in Afghanistan; it believes that it would then find itself in a hostile encirclement. Accordingly, Pakistan seeks to minimize, and ideally eliminate, Indian influence in Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, extremely dangerous antagonisms are increasing within Pakistan itself. Chaos and violence stemming from the strength of political Islam and the crisis of authority are spreading, and the country is experiencing creeping “Talibanization.” Islamist sentiments are strong in Pakistani society and among the elite. We need only recall the murder of Salman Taseer, the governor of Punjab Province. His killer became virtually a national hero.
At the same time, Pakistan is an active US ally in the fight against the Taliban and al-Qaeda. At least, that is what Islamabad says. This political position taken by the civilian authorities puts the Pakistani army in a difficult situation.
On the one hand, Pakistan’s armed forces are a NATO ally in the war against the Taliban and al-Qaeda, and the military carries out operations against terrorists in the northwest of the country in fulfillment of its obligations as an ally.
On the other hand, US actions are extremely unpopular in Pakistani society. Inhabitants of the regions bordering on Afghanistan where counterterrorist operations are conducted have sustained significant losses and have suffered greatly; many people have died in attacks by American UAVs flying from Afghan territory. Many have lost their homes and become refugees and forcibly displaced persons. Thousands of residents of North and South Waziristan have moved to other provinces, fleeing both NATO airstrikes and attacks by the Taliban, who are governing with increasing brutality in the regions they have captured by establishing a most cruel and inhuman system under the guise of inculcating Sharia norms.
Under the circumstances, the Pakistani military’s total submission to US demands inevitably produces a new wave of resentment in Pakistani society and increases social support for extremists.
Not knowing how to extricate itself from this extremely delicate situation, the Pakistani government objectively assisted the Taliban, who overreached themselves and pushed into the Swat Valley, creating a threat both to Pashtun regions and to other areas of the country. The Pakistani army vigorously fought the arrogant Taliban for the first time. However, it did not pursue the retreating fighters into North Waziristan. The reason may have been the heavy flooding, but Pakistan might have been playing a double game, as often happened.
Many experts are convinced of that. On the one hand, the Pakistani extremists doubtless had to be pushed up against the Afghan border and contained in the border regions. It is possible that the operation will yield an unspoken agreement about the rules for future coexistence between the armed Pashtun Islamists and official Islamabad. On the other hand, Pakistan will probably continue supporting the Afghan Taliban. That is why the military is not conducting mopping-up operations in North Waziristan, the Taliban’s main refuge. After all, Pakistan simply cannot allow the United States to win the war against the “violent mullahs,” because not only will that strengthen the Hamid Karzai government, it will also increase India’s influence in Kabul, which will inevitably cause Pakistan to lose influence in Afghanistan.
India in Afghanistan
India is one of the largest Afghanistan’s donors, and it is striving to take a position in Kabul commensurate with its investments, especially since Afghanistan is the gateway to energy-rich Central Asia. India has an interest in seeing Afghanistan stabilized and Pakistan’s influence in Afghanistan reduced.
At $2.1 billion, India today is the sixth largest investor in Afghanistan’s economy. Currently, there are more than 4000 Indian citizens in Afghanistan; most are security personnel and professionals involved in various projects to rebuild Afghanistan (training of Afghan police, education assistance, health care, energy and telecommunications). In addition to its embassy in Kabul, India has four consulates in Iraq, Mazar-e-Sharif, Jalalabad and Kandahar open and working effectively.
India is taking part in projects to rebuild dams in Herat Province, and it is scheduled to complete construction on the new Afghan parliament building in 2011.
In general, India has chosen to follow a “soft power” approach in Afghanistan, and it has reason to hope for success. Afghan society’s opinion towards India is favorable; Indian products are gaining on the local market, and its television and movie industries are popular with the Afghan population.
India’s government has partly financed development of the Chabahar seaport in Iran; and in 2008 it completed reconstruction of the Delaram-Zaranj highway on the border with Iran, which provides an additional outlet to the sea through Iran. That established an alternative route—bypassing Pakistan—for delivering goods to Afghanistan.
India’s strategic interests are the stabilization of Afghanistan and the strengthening of the central government in Kabul, because that promises to reduce the terrorist threat in the region. Afghanistan was a haven for terrorists during the Taliban’s reign, and many training camps were on its territory. Now, graduates of Pakistani madrassas take their “final exams” in Afghanistan, fighting NATO forces. New Delhi is aware that another radical regime in Kabul could export its ideology and destabilize the entire region, including Central Asia; and it could become an ally of Pakistan, which has not abandoned its plans to attack Kashmir.
The Islamists are trying to prevent India from gaining political strength in Kabul. India’s diplomatic missions continually receive threats from the Taliban and other extremist organizations operating in Afghanistan. In 2008, a suicide bomber attacked the Indian Embassy in Afghanistan, killing 40 people; and a terrorist attack was carried out in late 2008 in India itself. At the time, India and Pakistan were virtually on the threshold of a new war. The November 2008 terrorist attack in the Indian city of Mumbai was one of the largest since the 2001 attack on Parliament in New Delhi. The attack took place in India’s richest and most densely populated city. Islamist terrorist groups in Pakistan saw their chance to damage relations between the two states and, perhaps, even provoke a real war between New Delhi and Islamabad.
Everything points to Lashkar-e-Taiba as the radical organization that carried out the terrorist attack in Mumbai which, as it turned out, succeeded in pushing India and Pakistan to the brink of war. That terrorist attack objectively played into the hands of the Taliban and al-Qaeda because the suddenly worsening situation immediately caused the Pakistani army to be redeployed from the northwest (the Taliban’s area) to the border with India, which was in the interest of various terrorist groups.
However, the Islamists’ scheme did not succeed. The war was prevented by strong US pressure on New Delhi and Islamabad, as well, apparently, as the awareness of ruling circles in India and Pakistan of the potential consequences of a large-scale military conflict. We should not forget that the conflict between India and Pakistan has been smoldering for decades, and any exacerbation of the situation, such as another provocation by extremists, could lead to a new confrontation.
The international coalition forces will begin the gradual transfer of responsibility for security to the Afghan military in mid-2011. That event will be a catalyst and a sort of litmus test for how the situation in the region will evolve in the future. In order for the operation to be successful, the countries interested in Afghanistan’s future, especially India and Pakistan, will need to arrive at some kind of compromise. The United States will take the lead in this process. The question is whether the Obama administration will be able to find terms that are acceptable to all of the countries involved in the Afghan project.
Modern Afghanistan is a place where the interests of global and regional powers clash, especially those of states like India and Pakistan. New Delhi and Islamabad have moved their years-long standoff to a new space—Afghanistan—and they now aspire to take an active role in shaping its future. And the Pakistanis and the Indians each have their own plans for Afghanistan’s future.
Pakistan in Afghanistan
In addressing Islamabad’s positions, we need first to emphasize that Pakistan is key to resolving the situation in Afghanistan. There are extremist sanctuaries in Pakistan’s border regions, and it appears that only the Pakistani military can defeat them. In addition, Pakistan wants to participate in any negotiations affecting Afghanistan’s future, and it is fully capable of disrupting a peace agreement or a negotiation process among the Hamid Karzai government, NATO forces and the Taliban. For example, attempts by Afghan authorities to hold separate discussions with the Taliban failed primarily due to the position taken by Pakistan. Pakistan’s intelligence service arrested the Taliban leader Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar as soon as it became known that he was preparing for peace talks with Kabul without Islamabad being involved. In the future, Pakistan will obviously not allow anyone to hold talks with the Taliban unless Islamabad plays the central role of mediator.
Second, the Pakistani military considers Afghanistan to lie within its sphere of influence. Islamabad looks upon Afghanistan as its backyard, and Pakistan is doing everything it can to keep it that way. Pakistan’s military elite sees Afghanistan as its strategic resource, principally a space where it can deploy non-government formations and terrorist groups that act in Pakistan’s interests. In addition, Afghanistan gives Pakistan strategic depth. An Afghan regime loyal to Islamabad could provide space to maneuver and regroup forces in the event of a conflict with India. Afghanistan would be strategically important to the Pakistani government should there be a military showdown with India.
Third, Pakistan cannot allow a regime loyal to New Delhi to emerge in Afghanistan; it believes that it would then find itself in a hostile encirclement. Accordingly, Pakistan seeks to minimize, and ideally eliminate, Indian influence in Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, extremely dangerous antagonisms are increasing within Pakistan itself. Chaos and violence stemming from the strength of political Islam and the crisis of authority are spreading, and the country is experiencing creeping “Talibanization.” Islamist sentiments are strong in Pakistani society and among the elite. We need only recall the murder of Salman Taseer, the governor of Punjab Province. His killer became virtually a national hero.
At the same time, Pakistan is an active US ally in the fight against the Taliban and al-Qaeda. At least, that is what Islamabad says. This political position taken by the civilian authorities puts the Pakistani army in a difficult situation.
On the one hand, Pakistan’s armed forces are a NATO ally in the war against the Taliban and al-Qaeda, and the military carries out operations against terrorists in the northwest of the country in fulfillment of its obligations as an ally.
On the other hand, US actions are extremely unpopular in Pakistani society. Inhabitants of the regions bordering on Afghanistan where counterterrorist operations are conducted have sustained significant losses and have suffered greatly; many people have died in attacks by American UAVs flying from Afghan territory. Many have lost their homes and become refugees and forcibly displaced persons. Thousands of residents of North and South Waziristan have moved to other provinces, fleeing both NATO airstrikes and attacks by the Taliban, who are governing with increasing brutality in the regions they have captured by establishing a most cruel and inhuman system under the guise of inculcating Sharia norms.
Under the circumstances, the Pakistani military’s total submission to US demands inevitably produces a new wave of resentment in Pakistani society and increases social support for extremists.
Not knowing how to extricate itself from this extremely delicate situation, the Pakistani government objectively assisted the Taliban, who overreached themselves and pushed into the Swat Valley, creating a threat both to Pashtun regions and to other areas of the country. The Pakistani army vigorously fought the arrogant Taliban for the first time. However, it did not pursue the retreating fighters into North Waziristan. The reason may have been the heavy flooding, but Pakistan might have been playing a double game, as often happened.
Many experts are convinced of that. On the one hand, the Pakistani extremists doubtless had to be pushed up against the Afghan border and contained in the border regions. It is possible that the operation will yield an unspoken agreement about the rules for future coexistence between the armed Pashtun Islamists and official Islamabad. On the other hand, Pakistan will probably continue supporting the Afghan Taliban. That is why the military is not conducting mopping-up operations in North Waziristan, the Taliban’s main refuge. After all, Pakistan simply cannot allow the United States to win the war against the “violent mullahs,” because not only will that strengthen the Hamid Karzai government, it will also increase India’s influence in Kabul, which will inevitably cause Pakistan to lose influence in Afghanistan.
India in Afghanistan
India is one of the largest Afghanistan’s donors, and it is striving to take a position in Kabul commensurate with its investments, especially since Afghanistan is the gateway to energy-rich Central Asia. India has an interest in seeing Afghanistan stabilized and Pakistan’s influence in Afghanistan reduced.
At $2.1 billion, India today is the sixth largest investor in Afghanistan’s economy. Currently, there are more than 4000 Indian citizens in Afghanistan; most are security personnel and professionals involved in various projects to rebuild Afghanistan (training of Afghan police, education assistance, health care, energy and telecommunications). In addition to its embassy in Kabul, India has four consulates in Iraq, Mazar-e-Sharif, Jalalabad and Kandahar open and working effectively.
India is taking part in projects to rebuild dams in Herat Province, and it is scheduled to complete construction on the new Afghan parliament building in 2011.
In general, India has chosen to follow a “soft power” approach in Afghanistan, and it has reason to hope for success. Afghan society’s opinion towards India is favorable; Indian products are gaining on the local market, and its television and movie industries are popular with the Afghan population.
India’s government has partly financed development of the Chabahar seaport in Iran; and in 2008 it completed reconstruction of the Delaram-Zaranj highway on the border with Iran, which provides an additional outlet to the sea through Iran. That established an alternative route—bypassing Pakistan—for delivering goods to Afghanistan.
India’s strategic interests are the stabilization of Afghanistan and the strengthening of the central government in Kabul, because that promises to reduce the terrorist threat in the region. Afghanistan was a haven for terrorists during the Taliban’s reign, and many training camps were on its territory. Now, graduates of Pakistani madrassas take their “final exams” in Afghanistan, fighting NATO forces. New Delhi is aware that another radical regime in Kabul could export its ideology and destabilize the entire region, including Central Asia; and it could become an ally of Pakistan, which has not abandoned its plans to attack Kashmir.
The Islamists are trying to prevent India from gaining political strength in Kabul. India’s diplomatic missions continually receive threats from the Taliban and other extremist organizations operating in Afghanistan. In 2008, a suicide bomber attacked the Indian Embassy in Afghanistan, killing 40 people; and a terrorist attack was carried out in late 2008 in India itself. At the time, India and Pakistan were virtually on the threshold of a new war. The November 2008 terrorist attack in the Indian city of Mumbai was one of the largest since the 2001 attack on Parliament in New Delhi. The attack took place in India’s richest and most densely populated city. Islamist terrorist groups in Pakistan saw their chance to damage relations between the two states and, perhaps, even provoke a real war between New Delhi and Islamabad.
Everything points to Lashkar-e-Taiba as the radical organization that carried out the terrorist attack in Mumbai which, as it turned out, succeeded in pushing India and Pakistan to the brink of war. That terrorist attack objectively played into the hands of the Taliban and al-Qaeda because the suddenly worsening situation immediately caused the Pakistani army to be redeployed from the northwest (the Taliban’s area) to the border with India, which was in the interest of various terrorist groups.
However, the Islamists’ scheme did not succeed. The war was prevented by strong US pressure on New Delhi and Islamabad, as well, apparently, as the awareness of ruling circles in India and Pakistan of the potential consequences of a large-scale military conflict. We should not forget that the conflict between India and Pakistan has been smoldering for decades, and any exacerbation of the situation, such as another provocation by extremists, could lead to a new confrontation.
The international coalition forces will begin the gradual transfer of responsibility for security to the Afghan military in mid-2011. That event will be a catalyst and a sort of litmus test for how the situation in the region will evolve in the future. In order for the operation to be successful, the countries interested in Afghanistan’s future, especially India and Pakistan, will need to arrive at some kind of compromise. The United States will take the lead in this process. The question is whether the Obama administration will be able to find terms that are acceptable to all of the countries involved in the Afghan project.
Sunday, 10 April 2011
Hypocrisy at galore, by Mudasir Lateef
Hypocrisy at galore, by Mudasir Lateef
Sunday, April 10, 2011
I do not subscribe to the killing of innocent people, not even of 'Mujrims' by individuals or groups who have no legal authority to pass on judgements and execute them. So when Molvi Shoukat Shah was killed I took at as yet another innocent killing. I have never met Molvi Shoukat nor do know much about him. I know him through newspapers as chief of Jamiat-e-Ahal-e-hadees, as khateeb of their mosque at Gaw Kadal.
About life and politics of Molvi Shoukat I know him through other people. I know people in religious and political organizations as well in media. There is no single person I have come across who had ever word of appreciation for Molvi Shoukat. I always used to hear people calling him as "Indian agent", who was paid for working against "our movement".
When for the first time he held Eid prayers at TRC ground some years back, there was no dearth of people who called it a "show organized by India" (I however offered my prayers there). The live telecast of the namaaz by Doordarshan and out of proportions publicity by Indian official and private media lent much neened credence to this impression.
On occasions Molvi Shoukat himself authenticated what his advresaries believed about him. In 2008 during thick of Amarnath Land row, Molvi Shoukat traveled down to Raj Bhavan and met Governor S K Sinha, the villain who was believed to be working at destroying Kashmiri identity. Shoukat Shah extended his support to the Governor's chreished plan of setting up the Sharada Vidyapeeth, a Hindu denominational university funded by the Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board in Srinagar in lieu for allowing him to set up islamic University. The Sharda Vidyapeeth, in all its objective was seen as part of a larger Indian project to subvert the integrity of Islam in the State.
Shah was also the only single individual who appeared to be the supporter of general Sinha while even the pro India parties, PDP, NC and Communists were opposing him as communalist. “People say Gen. Sinha was a Hindu fanatic but that is not my experience of him. He was sometimes ill advised, but he was not a communalist. (Interview to Praveen Swami--Hindu--ugust 21, 2008).
During last year's uprising Shah came out with another fatwa calling stone-pelting as unIslamic. Quoting Hadees he fatwed that stone-pelting was against the islamic principals of protests. That time too Shah was at the centre of all the criticism and curse of common people. Facebookers used every filty language available in lexicons to express their anger against him and saw him an "astute Indian agent who is paid for every action".
His association with Yasin Malik was also seen as a part of "Indian masters advice to flock together". Otherwise Yasin Malik did share little in terms of politics and religious thoughts with Shah. Yasin had always posed to be a man with secular ideas with a sofi bent of mind notwithstanding the fact that most of the Kashmiri Pandits were killed by JKLF cadres.
It shivers me to recall the rape and murder of Pandit woman and her daughter at Habba Kadal by JKLF cadres in 1990. There are other dozens of Pandits including Information joint director P L Handoo, Tik Lal Taploo, Nel Kant Ganjoo, Lassa Koul, advocate H N Koul besides communist leader Abdul Sattar Ranjoor whose killing was claimed by JKLF cadres in newspapers, belying their secular claim. But if for argument sake, we take Yasin Malik's claim right even then he had no reason to tie with Molvi Shoukat Shah, who represented staunch salfi ideology quite opposed to the soft Hanfi views of Islam.
Molvi also faced strong opposition from within the jamiat. It is in his tenure as Jamiat chief that the Jamiat-e-Ahl-e-hadees got divided with his opponents accusing him of siphoning off huge sums of party funds. He is the second Jamait chief to have been murdered in the past 10 years. Earlier professor Ramzan was shot dead under mysterious circumstance some years back. A murmer that time spread in political and media circles was that he fell victim to "money battle" within the party.
How would one judge Molvi Shoukat when IG Kashmir says that his killing was personal loss for him.
What I mean by all this is not to see a justification in Molvi Shoukat's killing. It was indeed a henious crime committed by those with criminal mindset. What I mean to say by all this is that those who are shedding tears on his killings and issuing statements mere hypocrites. They believed in one thing and say another thing. That is true of common people as also those associated with the Ahal-e-hadees jamiat.
Let one person come forward who had word of appreciation for Molvi Shoukat when he was alive.
When Moaqbool Butt was alive we called him Indian agent. He suddenly became hero after he was hanged in Tihar jail. Even today I see people calling leaders as agents of India or Pakistan and tomorrow if the same leaders meet any fateful tragedy, they would become heroes.
This hprocicy has been part of our culture right from the begining. Molvi Shoukat has been buried in Martyrs' Graveyard of Eid Gah. Who knows the killer of Molvi will also be bruried just by his side tommorow. We see Molvi Mohammad Farooq and Mohammad Abdullah Bangroo, Abdul Gani Lone and Rafiq Ahmad Dar alias Lidre and dozens others (killed and killer) buried side by side in the martyrs' graveyard. isn't it disrespect to the real martyrs. Let us learn to call a spade a spade. If our political and religious leaders are a sacred lot we should give them that respect in their life time and those who indulge in criminal activities against them should be denounced publicy. But if the case is vice versa let us honest and muster the courage to tell the truth or at least keep our mouths shut.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
I do not subscribe to the killing of innocent people, not even of 'Mujrims' by individuals or groups who have no legal authority to pass on judgements and execute them. So when Molvi Shoukat Shah was killed I took at as yet another innocent killing. I have never met Molvi Shoukat nor do know much about him. I know him through newspapers as chief of Jamiat-e-Ahal-e-hadees, as khateeb of their mosque at Gaw Kadal.
About life and politics of Molvi Shoukat I know him through other people. I know people in religious and political organizations as well in media. There is no single person I have come across who had ever word of appreciation for Molvi Shoukat. I always used to hear people calling him as "Indian agent", who was paid for working against "our movement".
When for the first time he held Eid prayers at TRC ground some years back, there was no dearth of people who called it a "show organized by India" (I however offered my prayers there). The live telecast of the namaaz by Doordarshan and out of proportions publicity by Indian official and private media lent much neened credence to this impression.
On occasions Molvi Shoukat himself authenticated what his advresaries believed about him. In 2008 during thick of Amarnath Land row, Molvi Shoukat traveled down to Raj Bhavan and met Governor S K Sinha, the villain who was believed to be working at destroying Kashmiri identity. Shoukat Shah extended his support to the Governor's chreished plan of setting up the Sharada Vidyapeeth, a Hindu denominational university funded by the Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board in Srinagar in lieu for allowing him to set up islamic University. The Sharda Vidyapeeth, in all its objective was seen as part of a larger Indian project to subvert the integrity of Islam in the State.
Shah was also the only single individual who appeared to be the supporter of general Sinha while even the pro India parties, PDP, NC and Communists were opposing him as communalist. “People say Gen. Sinha was a Hindu fanatic but that is not my experience of him. He was sometimes ill advised, but he was not a communalist. (Interview to Praveen Swami--Hindu--ugust 21, 2008).
During last year's uprising Shah came out with another fatwa calling stone-pelting as unIslamic. Quoting Hadees he fatwed that stone-pelting was against the islamic principals of protests. That time too Shah was at the centre of all the criticism and curse of common people. Facebookers used every filty language available in lexicons to express their anger against him and saw him an "astute Indian agent who is paid for every action".
His association with Yasin Malik was also seen as a part of "Indian masters advice to flock together". Otherwise Yasin Malik did share little in terms of politics and religious thoughts with Shah. Yasin had always posed to be a man with secular ideas with a sofi bent of mind notwithstanding the fact that most of the Kashmiri Pandits were killed by JKLF cadres.
It shivers me to recall the rape and murder of Pandit woman and her daughter at Habba Kadal by JKLF cadres in 1990. There are other dozens of Pandits including Information joint director P L Handoo, Tik Lal Taploo, Nel Kant Ganjoo, Lassa Koul, advocate H N Koul besides communist leader Abdul Sattar Ranjoor whose killing was claimed by JKLF cadres in newspapers, belying their secular claim. But if for argument sake, we take Yasin Malik's claim right even then he had no reason to tie with Molvi Shoukat Shah, who represented staunch salfi ideology quite opposed to the soft Hanfi views of Islam.
Molvi also faced strong opposition from within the jamiat. It is in his tenure as Jamiat chief that the Jamiat-e-Ahl-e-hadees got divided with his opponents accusing him of siphoning off huge sums of party funds. He is the second Jamait chief to have been murdered in the past 10 years. Earlier professor Ramzan was shot dead under mysterious circumstance some years back. A murmer that time spread in political and media circles was that he fell victim to "money battle" within the party.
How would one judge Molvi Shoukat when IG Kashmir says that his killing was personal loss for him.
What I mean by all this is not to see a justification in Molvi Shoukat's killing. It was indeed a henious crime committed by those with criminal mindset. What I mean to say by all this is that those who are shedding tears on his killings and issuing statements mere hypocrites. They believed in one thing and say another thing. That is true of common people as also those associated with the Ahal-e-hadees jamiat.
Let one person come forward who had word of appreciation for Molvi Shoukat when he was alive.
When Moaqbool Butt was alive we called him Indian agent. He suddenly became hero after he was hanged in Tihar jail. Even today I see people calling leaders as agents of India or Pakistan and tomorrow if the same leaders meet any fateful tragedy, they would become heroes.
This hprocicy has been part of our culture right from the begining. Molvi Shoukat has been buried in Martyrs' Graveyard of Eid Gah. Who knows the killer of Molvi will also be bruried just by his side tommorow. We see Molvi Mohammad Farooq and Mohammad Abdullah Bangroo, Abdul Gani Lone and Rafiq Ahmad Dar alias Lidre and dozens others (killed and killer) buried side by side in the martyrs' graveyard. isn't it disrespect to the real martyrs. Let us learn to call a spade a spade. If our political and religious leaders are a sacred lot we should give them that respect in their life time and those who indulge in criminal activities against them should be denounced publicy. But if the case is vice versa let us honest and muster the courage to tell the truth or at least keep our mouths shut.
Wednesday, 6 April 2011
Pakistan, Bangladesh and Kashmir
Pakistan, Bangladesh and Kashmir
Dr Shabir Choudhry 06 April 2011
Both Pakistan and Bangladesh are South Asian Muslim countries with enormous social, economic and environmental problems. However, both are travelling in opposite directions; while one has vibrant economy and determination to succeed, the other has bleak future with no plan or even will to survive as a nation state.
Bangladesh was, at one time, East Pakistan – legal and constitutional part of Pakistan; but due to consistent injustice, discrimination and political and economic exploitation East Pakistan was forced to become Bangladesh. When Bangladesh emerged as an independent country it was in rubbles because of a long civil war and direct India and Pakistan war which resulted in humiliating defeat and imprisonment of more than 92 thousand Pakistani soldiers - biggest surrender in the human history.
I vividly remember, despite this humiliating defeat and biggest surrender in the history of mankind, there was no remorse or sense of loss. I heard many people saying ‘Thank God we got rid of these Bengalis - they were burden on our economy and resources.’
Bangladesh struggled during early years of its life mainly because the country was destroyed as a result of the military confrontation; and the civil service and the army they inherited were trained and nurtured by Pakistan which resulted in nepotism and military interventions.
Tahmina Anam in her article, ‘Happy 40th birthday Bangladesh’ published in Guardian on 24 March 2011, she wrote: ‘During those nine months in 1971, the world watched while the Pakistani army conducted a campaign of mass murder, rape and ethnic cleansing against an unarmed civilian population. In the name of religious unity, they killed up to 3 million people, displaced another 10 million into neighbouring India, and are alleged to have raped hundreds of thousands of women.’
While explaining the situation there she further wrote: ‘Born out of that brutal war of secession with Pakistan, battered by floods, cyclones, coups and political assassinations, it was once a country that had little chance of surviving. But against all odds, Bangladesh has flourished.’
After facing problems because of the military coups, instability and political assassinations, people of Bangladesh emerged as a nation with a future and determination to succeed. In 1988 Bangladesh heavily relied on international aid for its annual development budget, which was 85% of the total. This figure is now down to 2%; and despite world economic crises Bangladesh economy has grown at the rate of 5 -6% over the past 3 years.
In its recent assessment, Goldman Sachs has named ‘Bangladesh one of “next 11″ emerging economies’. Tahmina Anam writes: ‘Bangladesh has a vibrant women’s movement, regular elections, a free press, and a track record of investing in health and education. You only have to visit the capital to get a sense of the pace of change and transformation.’
This change did not come by an accident, they had to plan and work hard for it. Many experts believe that the Awami League campaigned on a platform of secularism and progressive politics, which helped to reverse many years of sectarianism and domination of far-right groups. In this regard Bangladeshi Supreme Court’s decision to restore country’s status as a secular republic also helped to provide harmony and stability.
Later on the High Court put a ban on issuing fatwa’s of right wing religious scholars, which generally created problems for the society. Organisations that promoted violence and extremism were put under pressure; and Harkut – Ul Jihad was banned, as it was perceived to be responsible for many terrorist incidents in the recent years.
Pakistan
Now in contrast, let us look at Pakistan. A Pakistani writer Sabrina Baloch, in her article, ‘Pakistan Celebrates Pakistan Day’ published on her blog - http://sabrinabaloch.blogspot.com/, wrote:
‘Born at midnight as a sovereign, independent, democratic country, today it is neither sovereign, nor independent, nor democratic. Today it is not just a “rentier state,” not just a client state. It is a slave state, ill-led, ill-governed by a corrupt, power-hungry junta running a puppet government set up by Washington.’
Sabrina Baloch further writes: ‘Sixty-three years after independence, are we really free? Are the people masters in their own house? From the kind of country we have today, Pakistan has lost its manhood and is a ghost of its former self. If Pakistan were to look into a mirror now, it wouldn’t recognise itself. The contrast between Pakistan in 1947 – idealistic, democratic, progressive, optimistic, and Pakistan today – leaderless, rudderless, violent, besieged, corrupt, uncertain about its future – could not be sharper or more disheartening. If you want to know how a people can survive despite their corrupt government, or corrupt leaders, well, visit Pakistan.’
When East Pakistan became Bangladesh, situation in Pakistan was bad, but not as bad as one witnesses today; and the above quotation only gives a glimpse of the prevailing situation in Pakistan. Situation is so bad that no one feels safe in the country. People don’t feel safe to go to their mosques or visit religious shrines because of threats of bombs and suicide attacks.
Pakistani economy is in a mess and the country seems to have no future, or at least it looks like that. Because of hunger, poverty and bleak future, many people are forced to sell their children, sell their body organs or commit suicide; and Pakistani leaders have no plans or even will to improve the condition of the people or that of the country.
Pakistan has to borrow money even to pay instalments of its loans, yet leaders and rulers are busy looting and amassing resources of the country and sending that in their accounts in foreign countries. Out of stupidity or wishful thinking these leaders and rulers still hope that foreign investors could be so naïve that they will invest in Pakistan when they know that Pakistanis are taking out their money and investing in other countries. Apart from that when the country is in chaos and there is acute shortage of energy; and there is uncontrolled corruption and civil war only fool from abroad could invest in Pakistan.
Kashmir
People of Jammu and Kashmir State are forcibly divided and oppressed with various degrees of human rights abuses on both sides of the Line of Control; and leaders or those who are promoted as leaders are clueless and not sure what they want to achieve and what are they struggling for.
Because of the above situation, injustice and military campaigns in various parts of Pakistan some parts of the Pakistan, especially Balochistan no longer want to be part of Pakistan. But despite all the above, some Kashmiri leaders or more appropriately puppets of Pakistan actively campaign and try to persuade people of Jammu and Kashmir to become part of this Pakistan.
Deep inside their hearts these so called leaders know future of Jammu and Kashmir is not with Pakistan, as Pakistan has nothing to give to people of the State apart from what they have given to their own people, as explained above. But these puppets, imposed on people of Jammu and Kashmir as leaders are so selfish and ego centred that they could only see their personal gains, and interest of the people is not their priority.
People of Jammu and Kashmir need to speak their mind and tell these ‘leaders’ and those who control them that they want to be independent and have no desire to join Pakistan, or any other country for that matter. Our destiny is an independent, liberal, secular and prosperous Jammu and Kashmir State, a country for all its citizens and not for Muslims or one sect of Muslims.
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 06 April 2011
Both Pakistan and Bangladesh are South Asian Muslim countries with enormous social, economic and environmental problems. However, both are travelling in opposite directions; while one has vibrant economy and determination to succeed, the other has bleak future with no plan or even will to survive as a nation state.
Bangladesh was, at one time, East Pakistan – legal and constitutional part of Pakistan; but due to consistent injustice, discrimination and political and economic exploitation East Pakistan was forced to become Bangladesh. When Bangladesh emerged as an independent country it was in rubbles because of a long civil war and direct India and Pakistan war which resulted in humiliating defeat and imprisonment of more than 92 thousand Pakistani soldiers - biggest surrender in the human history.
I vividly remember, despite this humiliating defeat and biggest surrender in the history of mankind, there was no remorse or sense of loss. I heard many people saying ‘Thank God we got rid of these Bengalis - they were burden on our economy and resources.’
Bangladesh struggled during early years of its life mainly because the country was destroyed as a result of the military confrontation; and the civil service and the army they inherited were trained and nurtured by Pakistan which resulted in nepotism and military interventions.
Tahmina Anam in her article, ‘Happy 40th birthday Bangladesh’ published in Guardian on 24 March 2011, she wrote: ‘During those nine months in 1971, the world watched while the Pakistani army conducted a campaign of mass murder, rape and ethnic cleansing against an unarmed civilian population. In the name of religious unity, they killed up to 3 million people, displaced another 10 million into neighbouring India, and are alleged to have raped hundreds of thousands of women.’
While explaining the situation there she further wrote: ‘Born out of that brutal war of secession with Pakistan, battered by floods, cyclones, coups and political assassinations, it was once a country that had little chance of surviving. But against all odds, Bangladesh has flourished.’
After facing problems because of the military coups, instability and political assassinations, people of Bangladesh emerged as a nation with a future and determination to succeed. In 1988 Bangladesh heavily relied on international aid for its annual development budget, which was 85% of the total. This figure is now down to 2%; and despite world economic crises Bangladesh economy has grown at the rate of 5 -6% over the past 3 years.
In its recent assessment, Goldman Sachs has named ‘Bangladesh one of “next 11″ emerging economies’. Tahmina Anam writes: ‘Bangladesh has a vibrant women’s movement, regular elections, a free press, and a track record of investing in health and education. You only have to visit the capital to get a sense of the pace of change and transformation.’
This change did not come by an accident, they had to plan and work hard for it. Many experts believe that the Awami League campaigned on a platform of secularism and progressive politics, which helped to reverse many years of sectarianism and domination of far-right groups. In this regard Bangladeshi Supreme Court’s decision to restore country’s status as a secular republic also helped to provide harmony and stability.
Later on the High Court put a ban on issuing fatwa’s of right wing religious scholars, which generally created problems for the society. Organisations that promoted violence and extremism were put under pressure; and Harkut – Ul Jihad was banned, as it was perceived to be responsible for many terrorist incidents in the recent years.
Pakistan
Now in contrast, let us look at Pakistan. A Pakistani writer Sabrina Baloch, in her article, ‘Pakistan Celebrates Pakistan Day’ published on her blog - http://sabrinabaloch.blogspot.com/, wrote:
‘Born at midnight as a sovereign, independent, democratic country, today it is neither sovereign, nor independent, nor democratic. Today it is not just a “rentier state,” not just a client state. It is a slave state, ill-led, ill-governed by a corrupt, power-hungry junta running a puppet government set up by Washington.’
Sabrina Baloch further writes: ‘Sixty-three years after independence, are we really free? Are the people masters in their own house? From the kind of country we have today, Pakistan has lost its manhood and is a ghost of its former self. If Pakistan were to look into a mirror now, it wouldn’t recognise itself. The contrast between Pakistan in 1947 – idealistic, democratic, progressive, optimistic, and Pakistan today – leaderless, rudderless, violent, besieged, corrupt, uncertain about its future – could not be sharper or more disheartening. If you want to know how a people can survive despite their corrupt government, or corrupt leaders, well, visit Pakistan.’
When East Pakistan became Bangladesh, situation in Pakistan was bad, but not as bad as one witnesses today; and the above quotation only gives a glimpse of the prevailing situation in Pakistan. Situation is so bad that no one feels safe in the country. People don’t feel safe to go to their mosques or visit religious shrines because of threats of bombs and suicide attacks.
Pakistani economy is in a mess and the country seems to have no future, or at least it looks like that. Because of hunger, poverty and bleak future, many people are forced to sell their children, sell their body organs or commit suicide; and Pakistani leaders have no plans or even will to improve the condition of the people or that of the country.
Pakistan has to borrow money even to pay instalments of its loans, yet leaders and rulers are busy looting and amassing resources of the country and sending that in their accounts in foreign countries. Out of stupidity or wishful thinking these leaders and rulers still hope that foreign investors could be so naïve that they will invest in Pakistan when they know that Pakistanis are taking out their money and investing in other countries. Apart from that when the country is in chaos and there is acute shortage of energy; and there is uncontrolled corruption and civil war only fool from abroad could invest in Pakistan.
Kashmir
People of Jammu and Kashmir State are forcibly divided and oppressed with various degrees of human rights abuses on both sides of the Line of Control; and leaders or those who are promoted as leaders are clueless and not sure what they want to achieve and what are they struggling for.
Because of the above situation, injustice and military campaigns in various parts of Pakistan some parts of the Pakistan, especially Balochistan no longer want to be part of Pakistan. But despite all the above, some Kashmiri leaders or more appropriately puppets of Pakistan actively campaign and try to persuade people of Jammu and Kashmir to become part of this Pakistan.
Deep inside their hearts these so called leaders know future of Jammu and Kashmir is not with Pakistan, as Pakistan has nothing to give to people of the State apart from what they have given to their own people, as explained above. But these puppets, imposed on people of Jammu and Kashmir as leaders are so selfish and ego centred that they could only see their personal gains, and interest of the people is not their priority.
People of Jammu and Kashmir need to speak their mind and tell these ‘leaders’ and those who control them that they want to be independent and have no desire to join Pakistan, or any other country for that matter. Our destiny is an independent, liberal, secular and prosperous Jammu and Kashmir State, a country for all its citizens and not for Muslims or one sect of Muslims.
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
Saturday, 2 April 2011
Those Kashmiris who still want to join Pakistan or expect better from them, must read this:Happy 40th birthday Bangladesh
Those Kashmiris who still want to join Pakistan or expect better from them, must read this:
Happy 40th birthday Bangladesh
It boasts a growing economy, a vibrant political scene and a strong women's movement . . . Forty years after the bloody war that gave it birth, Bangladesh has much to celebrate
•
•
o Tahmima Anam
o guardian.co.uk, Thursday 24 March 2011 21.00 GMT
Bangladeshi women customers queue to repay their microloans with the groundbreaking Grameen Bank. Photograph: Karen Kasmauski/Getty Images/Science Faction
Four days before the end of the Bangladesh war, on Sunday 12 December 1971, a group of Pakistani officers came together in Dhaka's presidential residence. They knew they were about to lose the war they had been fighting for the past nine months to stop East Pakistan from breaking away. Indira Gandhi had intervened on the emergentBangladesh's behalf, and the Indian army was advancing on the capital.
Deciding to hobble the nation whose creation they could no longer prevent, the officers put together the names of 250 people to be arrested and killed: journalists, artists, doctors and university professors. The arrests were made on Monday and Tuesday by marked bands of extreme rightwing collaborators, the razakars. On the Tuesday evening, hours before the official surrender was signed, the victims were taken to the outskirts of the city, where they were executed.
My grandfather, once a prominent political dissident, was in his 70s by then and had already spent almost a decade of his life in Pakistani jails. Upon hearing of the arrests he went into hiding and escaped, but hundreds of other intellectuals were not so lucky. They were shot and dumped in a mass grave in a place called Rayerbazaar, only discovered a few days after independence. Newsreels of the time show the families of the victims standing around a wide ditch, staring in disbelief at the bodies strewn within.
During those nine months in 1971, the world watched while the Pakistani army conducted a campaign of mass murder, rape and ethnic cleansing against an unarmed civilian population. In the name of religious unity, they killed up to 3 million people (although an official Pakistani report only acknowledges 26,000 civilian deaths), displaced another 10 million into neighbouring India, and are alleged to have raped hundreds of thousands of women.
March 26 marks the 40th anniversary of the independence ofBangladesh (that being the day when the war began), and the country has come a long way. Born out of that brutal war of secession with Pakistan, battered by floods, cyclones, coups and political assassinations, it was once a country that had little chance of surviving. But against all odds, Bangladesh has flourished. It no longer fits the cliche of the "basket case" dismissed by Henry Kissinger in 1971.
In 40 years, the economic picture has transformed dramatically. In 1988, Bangladesh relied on international aid for 85% of its annual development budget. That figure is now down to 2%. The economy has grown by 5-6% over the last three years, buoyed by the success of the ready-made garments industry, which is worth more than £7bn, and the remittance sent home by Bangladeshis abroad, estimated last year at $10bn (£6bn). Goldman Sachs recently named Bangladesh as one of its "next 11" emerging economies. Bangladesh has a vibrant women's movement, regular elections, a free press, and a track record of investing in health and education. You only have to visit the capital to get a sense of the pace of change and transformation.
Progress and stability were hard won. The country's first decade saw a series of unstable governments and the murders of its two best-known and beloved politicians: Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, who led the independence movement, and General Zia, a decorated war hero. Their deaths were followed by the nine-year dictatorship of Hossain Mohammad Ershad, appearing to confirm the suspicion that democracy could not flourish in a country with so many problems. But in 1990, a popular movement not unlike the ones we are witnessing in the Middle East today ousted Ershad. There have been four successful parliamentary elections since then.
Soldiers of the Bangladesh Freedom Army march off to war against the Pakistan army, near Jessore, Bangladesh, in April 1971. Photograph: AP
In 2008, the Awami League, led by Sheikh Mujib's daughter Sheikh Hasina Wazed, won a landslide electoral victory. The party campaigned on a platform of secularism and progressive politics, reversing decades of political pandering to far-right groups. Last year, the supreme court restored Bangladesh to its status as a secular republic. Soon thereafter, the high court declared that fatwas were illegal. Harkat-ul-Jihad, the terrorist organisation that had been behind a spate of suicide bombings in 2005, was outlawed. But most importantly, after waiting for four long decades, the victims of the 1971 genocide are finally getting justice. Last year, an international war crimes tribunal was set up, and prosecutors have begun collecting evidence of rapes, killings and arson in preparation for war crimes trials expected to take place later this year. Arrest warrants have been issued against five members of the far-right Islamist party Jamaat-e-Islami, which is accused of siding with the Pakistani army during the war.
Pakistan has never officially apologised to Bangladesh, and the 1974 Delhi treaty has prevented Bangladesh from charging the soldiers and officers responsible for the genocide. But their local collaborators, including the ones who colluded in the killing of intellectuals on 14 December, have thus far been free to remain citizens of Bangladesh, to run for office, and, in some cases, to brag about their past as razakars. With the tribunal, this culture of impunity may finally come to an end. In dealing with the deep wounds of the past, Bangladesh may find a way forward.
If the war crimes tribunal is a sign of the country's ability to move forward, the recent treatment of one of independent Bangladesh's biggest heroes is a symbol of everything that could go wrong with the country.
It would be impossible to celebrate the success of Bangladesh without including the story of Muhammad Yunus, who, 35 years ago, founded a bank on the principle of lending small sums of money to the poor without collateral. That led to the formation of the Grameen Bank, which stands today as one of the most transformative and revolutionary ideas in the modern world. That such an idea should come from Bangladesh is not surprising. When Yunus founded his bank, Bangladesh was far from overturning the cliche of its disaster-prone fate. The very real pressures of poverty are what made his idea possible – it was a home-grown solution to a deep and enduring problem. Microcredit, though it has its critics and could never have been a complete solution to the perils of poverty, has dramatically altered the lives of millions, in Bangladesh and abroad.
Now, the man who brought not only fame but dignity to his country, has been sacked from his job. The reasons appear to be political: Yunus launched a party called Citizens' Power in 2007, and though he disbanded it within months, the political establishment began to see him as a threat. It seems beyond belief that such a man should be vilified by his own government, and his case points to a punishing short sightedness that could threaten much of Bangladesh's current success.
On my last trip to Bangladesh, I visited a company called PHP (Peace, Happiness and Prosperity) in the port city of Chittagong. I was doing research for my next novel, and the company's chairman, a charming, eccentric Sufi named Mizanur Rahman, was my host for the day. He decided to take me on a tour, so we visited his steel rolling mill, his glass factory and his aluminium siding plant. As we drove to one location after another, he sat beside me in his car and gave me advice about my life, my career and my marriage. He often whispered "Alhamdullillah" (Praise Allah), "Inshallah" (God willing) and "Sobhan Allah" (Thanks be to God) between sentences. Hearing I was recently married, he wrote down a prayer in my notebook. "Repeat after me," he said, ignoring my feeble protests. "If you say this prayer, you will have sons."
Later, trying to find ways to reverse what I feared was a hex on my future children, I thought about Rahman's company. Each time we entered one of his factories, he would stand in front of his workers and announce the call to prayer. Once inside, he greeted every man with an embrace, from workers at the rolling mill to the Chinese glassmaker to the south Indian floor manager. His factories were spotless and technologically advanced. His devout religious practice did not seem to have adversely affected the way he ran his business. He was a very rich and important man, yet he had spent all day with me, calling me "daughter", ladling food on to my plate and insisting I take home a bag of oranges from his garden. I learned something important that day, about the way things can sometimes be comingled in Bangladesh – the religious, the civic, the secular, the entrepreneurial. Peace, Happiness and Prosperity.
A few weeks before I was due to leave Dhaka, the stock market suddenly dipped to perilous lows, shaving 25% off its total value within hours. Protesters, some of whom had invested their life's savings, rioted outside the Dhaka stock exchange. The next day, the market bubbled up again and all appeared to be well. The finance minister appeared on television to reassure investors. A few days later, another dip, another riot, another series of announcements. Whether due to fate or manipulation, I could not help but think of it as a symbol of the country itself, a place of great highs and lows, and one in which citizens are asked, on a daily basis, to live on the edge of opportunity.
Happy 40th birthday Bangladesh
It boasts a growing economy, a vibrant political scene and a strong women's movement . . . Forty years after the bloody war that gave it birth, Bangladesh has much to celebrate
•
•
o Tahmima Anam
o guardian.co.uk, Thursday 24 March 2011 21.00 GMT
Bangladeshi women customers queue to repay their microloans with the groundbreaking Grameen Bank. Photograph: Karen Kasmauski/Getty Images/Science Faction
Four days before the end of the Bangladesh war, on Sunday 12 December 1971, a group of Pakistani officers came together in Dhaka's presidential residence. They knew they were about to lose the war they had been fighting for the past nine months to stop East Pakistan from breaking away. Indira Gandhi had intervened on the emergentBangladesh's behalf, and the Indian army was advancing on the capital.
Deciding to hobble the nation whose creation they could no longer prevent, the officers put together the names of 250 people to be arrested and killed: journalists, artists, doctors and university professors. The arrests were made on Monday and Tuesday by marked bands of extreme rightwing collaborators, the razakars. On the Tuesday evening, hours before the official surrender was signed, the victims were taken to the outskirts of the city, where they were executed.
My grandfather, once a prominent political dissident, was in his 70s by then and had already spent almost a decade of his life in Pakistani jails. Upon hearing of the arrests he went into hiding and escaped, but hundreds of other intellectuals were not so lucky. They were shot and dumped in a mass grave in a place called Rayerbazaar, only discovered a few days after independence. Newsreels of the time show the families of the victims standing around a wide ditch, staring in disbelief at the bodies strewn within.
During those nine months in 1971, the world watched while the Pakistani army conducted a campaign of mass murder, rape and ethnic cleansing against an unarmed civilian population. In the name of religious unity, they killed up to 3 million people (although an official Pakistani report only acknowledges 26,000 civilian deaths), displaced another 10 million into neighbouring India, and are alleged to have raped hundreds of thousands of women.
March 26 marks the 40th anniversary of the independence ofBangladesh (that being the day when the war began), and the country has come a long way. Born out of that brutal war of secession with Pakistan, battered by floods, cyclones, coups and political assassinations, it was once a country that had little chance of surviving. But against all odds, Bangladesh has flourished. It no longer fits the cliche of the "basket case" dismissed by Henry Kissinger in 1971.
In 40 years, the economic picture has transformed dramatically. In 1988, Bangladesh relied on international aid for 85% of its annual development budget. That figure is now down to 2%. The economy has grown by 5-6% over the last three years, buoyed by the success of the ready-made garments industry, which is worth more than £7bn, and the remittance sent home by Bangladeshis abroad, estimated last year at $10bn (£6bn). Goldman Sachs recently named Bangladesh as one of its "next 11" emerging economies. Bangladesh has a vibrant women's movement, regular elections, a free press, and a track record of investing in health and education. You only have to visit the capital to get a sense of the pace of change and transformation.
Progress and stability were hard won. The country's first decade saw a series of unstable governments and the murders of its two best-known and beloved politicians: Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, who led the independence movement, and General Zia, a decorated war hero. Their deaths were followed by the nine-year dictatorship of Hossain Mohammad Ershad, appearing to confirm the suspicion that democracy could not flourish in a country with so many problems. But in 1990, a popular movement not unlike the ones we are witnessing in the Middle East today ousted Ershad. There have been four successful parliamentary elections since then.
Soldiers of the Bangladesh Freedom Army march off to war against the Pakistan army, near Jessore, Bangladesh, in April 1971. Photograph: AP
In 2008, the Awami League, led by Sheikh Mujib's daughter Sheikh Hasina Wazed, won a landslide electoral victory. The party campaigned on a platform of secularism and progressive politics, reversing decades of political pandering to far-right groups. Last year, the supreme court restored Bangladesh to its status as a secular republic. Soon thereafter, the high court declared that fatwas were illegal. Harkat-ul-Jihad, the terrorist organisation that had been behind a spate of suicide bombings in 2005, was outlawed. But most importantly, after waiting for four long decades, the victims of the 1971 genocide are finally getting justice. Last year, an international war crimes tribunal was set up, and prosecutors have begun collecting evidence of rapes, killings and arson in preparation for war crimes trials expected to take place later this year. Arrest warrants have been issued against five members of the far-right Islamist party Jamaat-e-Islami, which is accused of siding with the Pakistani army during the war.
Pakistan has never officially apologised to Bangladesh, and the 1974 Delhi treaty has prevented Bangladesh from charging the soldiers and officers responsible for the genocide. But their local collaborators, including the ones who colluded in the killing of intellectuals on 14 December, have thus far been free to remain citizens of Bangladesh, to run for office, and, in some cases, to brag about their past as razakars. With the tribunal, this culture of impunity may finally come to an end. In dealing with the deep wounds of the past, Bangladesh may find a way forward.
If the war crimes tribunal is a sign of the country's ability to move forward, the recent treatment of one of independent Bangladesh's biggest heroes is a symbol of everything that could go wrong with the country.
It would be impossible to celebrate the success of Bangladesh without including the story of Muhammad Yunus, who, 35 years ago, founded a bank on the principle of lending small sums of money to the poor without collateral. That led to the formation of the Grameen Bank, which stands today as one of the most transformative and revolutionary ideas in the modern world. That such an idea should come from Bangladesh is not surprising. When Yunus founded his bank, Bangladesh was far from overturning the cliche of its disaster-prone fate. The very real pressures of poverty are what made his idea possible – it was a home-grown solution to a deep and enduring problem. Microcredit, though it has its critics and could never have been a complete solution to the perils of poverty, has dramatically altered the lives of millions, in Bangladesh and abroad.
Now, the man who brought not only fame but dignity to his country, has been sacked from his job. The reasons appear to be political: Yunus launched a party called Citizens' Power in 2007, and though he disbanded it within months, the political establishment began to see him as a threat. It seems beyond belief that such a man should be vilified by his own government, and his case points to a punishing short sightedness that could threaten much of Bangladesh's current success.
On my last trip to Bangladesh, I visited a company called PHP (Peace, Happiness and Prosperity) in the port city of Chittagong. I was doing research for my next novel, and the company's chairman, a charming, eccentric Sufi named Mizanur Rahman, was my host for the day. He decided to take me on a tour, so we visited his steel rolling mill, his glass factory and his aluminium siding plant. As we drove to one location after another, he sat beside me in his car and gave me advice about my life, my career and my marriage. He often whispered "Alhamdullillah" (Praise Allah), "Inshallah" (God willing) and "Sobhan Allah" (Thanks be to God) between sentences. Hearing I was recently married, he wrote down a prayer in my notebook. "Repeat after me," he said, ignoring my feeble protests. "If you say this prayer, you will have sons."
Later, trying to find ways to reverse what I feared was a hex on my future children, I thought about Rahman's company. Each time we entered one of his factories, he would stand in front of his workers and announce the call to prayer. Once inside, he greeted every man with an embrace, from workers at the rolling mill to the Chinese glassmaker to the south Indian floor manager. His factories were spotless and technologically advanced. His devout religious practice did not seem to have adversely affected the way he ran his business. He was a very rich and important man, yet he had spent all day with me, calling me "daughter", ladling food on to my plate and insisting I take home a bag of oranges from his garden. I learned something important that day, about the way things can sometimes be comingled in Bangladesh – the religious, the civic, the secular, the entrepreneurial. Peace, Happiness and Prosperity.
A few weeks before I was due to leave Dhaka, the stock market suddenly dipped to perilous lows, shaving 25% off its total value within hours. Protesters, some of whom had invested their life's savings, rioted outside the Dhaka stock exchange. The next day, the market bubbled up again and all appeared to be well. The finance minister appeared on television to reassure investors. A few days later, another dip, another riot, another series of announcements. Whether due to fate or manipulation, I could not help but think of it as a symbol of the country itself, a place of great highs and lows, and one in which citizens are asked, on a daily basis, to live on the edge of opportunity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)