Key Points In US Afghan Bilateral Security Agreement

Key Points In US Afghan Bilateral Security Agreement

At long last, Kabul and Washington have signed a Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) under which some 10,000 U.S. troops can remain in Afghanistan after the international combat mission ends on December 31.Here are five things to know about the accord signed on September 30.

How many U.S. troops will stay, and how long?

The BSA goes into force on January 1, 2015 and remains in force "until the end of 2024 and beyond" unless it is terminated by either side with two years' notice. 

The document itself does not establish how many U.S. troops can be in Afghanistan during that time. But U.S. President Barack Obama announced in May that there would be only 9,800 soldiers after December 31. He also said that number would decrease rapidly by being halved at the end of 2105 and reduced to only a vestigial force by end of 2016. 

The Associated Press has reported that Washington's plan calls for fewer than 1,000 soldiers to remain after 2016 to staff a security office in Kabul advising the Afghan army.

The U.S. troops will not be the only foreign troops staying in Afghanistan.

Kabul signed a similar agreement with NATO on September 30 to allow 4,000 to 5,000 additional troops -- mostly from Britain, Germany, Italy, and Turkey -- to stay in Afghanistan in a noncombat role after 2014.

That means the total number of foreign soldiers immediately remaining in the county could be up to 14,800.

Why are the U.S. soldiers staying?

The U.S. forces' mission under the BSA is to "enhance the ability of Afghanistan to deter internal and external threats against its sovereignty." 

That includes "advising, training, equipping and sustaining" Afghanistan's National Defense and Security Forces, which are those under the ministries of Defense and Interior, and "as appropriate," those of the National Security Directorate, which is a special counterterrorism office.

Importantly, however, the BSA says that "unless otherwise mutually agreed, United States forces shall not conduct combat operations in Afghanistan." Instead, the emphasis is upon supporting the Afghan forces, sharing of intelligence, and strengthening Afghanistan's air force capabilities.

Similarly, the new NATO mission, which is led by the United States, will focus on training and support for the Afghan army and police, not on combat. 

What about earlier sticking points regarding the BSA?

Former Afghan President Hamid Karzai refused to sign the BSA in part because he wanted it to ban U.S. soldiers from entering Afghan homes in future counterterrorism operations. That was in line with his frequently blaming of U.S. forces for Afghan civilian deaths in military operations.

However, a special loya jirga (traditional grand assembly) convened by Karzai in November to review the draft of the BSA found its language regarding soldiers entering homes acceptable and recommended the president accept it.

That language -- repeated in the text signed September 30 -- commits U.S. forces to having "full regard for the safety and security of the Afghan people, including in their homes." 

It also stresses that "U.S. military counterterrorism operations are intended to complement and support" those of the Afghan government, meaning Afghan forces should take the lead in operations that could include entry into homes. 

Another sticking point had been whether U.S. forces remaining in Afghanistan would be immune from Afghan law, as they have been since entering the country in 2001. 

The BSA addresses this question directly, saying Kabul "agrees that the United States shall have the exclusive right to exercise jurisdiction" over U.S. soldiers who commit "any criminal or civil offenses" in Afghanistan. 

Washington commits only to keeping Kabul informed "if requested" of the progress of U.S. criminal proceedings against soldiers accused of crimes and to making efforts so that representatives of Afghanistan can attend or observe the proceedings in U.S. military courts.

However, the BSA does give Afghanistan jurisdiction over "United States contractors and United States contractor employees."

If Kabul had not agreed to immunity for U.S. soldiers, Washington would almost certainly have refused to sign the BSA. Iraq's refusal to give U.S. soldiers immunity helped to scuttle plans to leave a U.S. military-training presence in that country beyond 2011.

Will America Defend Afghanistan Against Third Countries?

The BSA is not a defense pact which would commit the United States to defending Afghanistan if it were attacked by another state. But the text does say Washington "shall regard with grave concern any external aggression or threat of external aggression."

It also says that in the case of external aggression, Washington and Kabul would work together to develop "an appropriate response," including considering political, military, and economic measures.  

Will the United States Maintain Military Bases In Afghanistan?

The BSA authorizes U.S. forces to maintain existing facilities and undertake new constructions so long as they are agreed upon by both sides.

That clause in the BSA is likely to be closely read by Iran, which accuses Washington of seeking to create a permanent presence in the region under the guise of fighting terrorism. Iran's state-run Press TV said in a commentary on its website September 30 that "Germany and Japan provide excellent examples of how the number of American bases mushroomed in these countries under the pretext of fighting the Cold War."

The United States has repeatedly said it does not seek permanent bases in Afghanistan, despite claims by Karzai in May last year that Washington wanted nine bases and that he would not accept it.

"We seek no permanent bases," then-White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters the day after Karzai's remarks. "Any continued presence of U.S. forces in Afghanistan beyond 2014 would be subject to an agreement between the Afghanistan government and the U.S. government, and would only be at the request of the Afghanistan government."

http://gandhara.rferl.org/content/bsa-afghanistan-explainer/26613715.html

In Balochistan Violence Continues to Target Journalists

In Balochistan Violence Continues to Target Journalists

Barakwal Miakhel and Abubakar Siddique

03.10.2014QUETTA, Pakistan -- Journalism has become one of the most dangerous professions in the southwestern Pakistani province of Balochistan, where 38 journalists have been killed since 2008.

Habibur Rahman Taseer, a stringer for Deusche Welle, is among the latest victims of violence and intimidation against media workers.  

"Unknown people phoned me last month and threatened to kill me. They also called my journalist friends and told them that I was a suspicious person," he told RFE/RL’s Gandhara website. "They said that they worked for an [unnamed] organization which considered our radio station suspicious, and that my reporting violated their policies."

Taseer said that the callers repeatedly accused him of working for a foreign intelligence service. "'This is why we will not spare you. We will kill you,' I was told repeatedly," he said.

In early September, days after the threats were made, Taseer, 38, left Balochistan's capital, Quetta, for his native Ghazni province in central Afghanistan. "When they threatened to harm my children, I saw no point in informing the police and hastily left," he said.

"They told me where my eighth-grade son and my daughter, who is in the first grade, went to schools," he said. "So I left Quetta for the sake of my children's safety."

Only days before on August 28, two journalists and a fellow office worker were shot dead in Quetta.  Irshad Mastoi, Abdur Rasool, and Muhammad Younas worked for the local news agency, Online.

Shahzada Zulfiqar, a senior journalist in Balochistan, says that authorities have so far failed to make a single arrest in the murder of a journalist. He added that members of Balochistan's police force are reluctant to investigate the killings because of fear that it would imperil their security.

"Without the help of the army and the intelligence services, it will be very difficult for the police to nab a single killer," he told Gandhara. "Those involved in killing journalists are very powerful. They are not common criminals. Such groups are behind sophisticated targeted assassinations and terrorist attacks. They are beyond the reach of the police."

Balochistan, a vast, resource-rich region, has been the scene of a violent, separatist insurgency and sectarian strife since 2004. Thousands of secessionist rebels, civilians, and soldiers have died in the conflict with secular, ethnic Baluch nationalists.

In addition, more than 1,000 Shi'ite Muslims have been killed in attacks by hardline Sunni factions. Amid such lawlessness, criminality has spiked and murders and kidnappings have reached unprecedented numbers.

Zulfiqar said that separatist organizations such as the Baloch Liberation Front and Baloch Liberation Army have claimed responsibility for some of the 27 journalists killed in targeted assassinations since 2007.  Many of the other murders remain unexplained, or are attributed to the other side.

"The relatives of these journalists claim that intelligence services, or militant groups nurtured by them to counter the Baloch separatists, are responsible for killing their sons or brothers," he said.

Sayed Ali Shah, a Balochistan correspondent for the English-language daily "Dawn," says that reporting on Baluch separatist violence and the presence of Afghan Taliban in the region have been considered red lines for Balochistan's journalists for a long time, but in recent years covering even routine, local issues can prove deadly.

"Reporting ordinary news, such as reporting one tribal leader or politician speaking against another, can land you into trouble," he told Gandhara. "There are so many powerful people here that if they kidnap or harm a journalist, the state's security institutions are not capable of helping. Apart from reporting on sensitive issues, we cannot even report the true picture of our society, officials, and government organizations."

Jan Mohammad Buledi, spokesman for the province’s top official, Chief Minister Abdul Malik, says that their administration is committed to protect journalists in Balochistan by deploying security guards at media offices.

"We are investigating the people responsible for harming journalists and are also looking into the factors behind such acts," he said. "It is difficult to investigate the murders that are not claimed by known militant groups. It takes time to uncover people involved in such murders."

Asad Shah, a senior police officer in charge of investigating violence against journalists, says their efforts have yet to show results. "We have uncovered the way journalists are killed and kidnapped, but we have to unmask the people involved in such attacks," he said.

But journalists in the province are not optimistic and have resorted to protests. During the past months they have held numerous demonstrations, and waged a week-long hunger strike in front of the parliament in Quetta demanding that the government provide them security and investigate attacks on journalists.

Irfan Saeed, president of the Balochistan Union of Journalists, says the provincial authorities and the central government are not serious about addressing the violence.

"Four months ago the government announced a judicial commission to probe the murders of our colleagues in Balochistan," he said. "But the idea remains buried in government files and we have yet to see any results."

Abubakar Siddique wrote this report based on reporting by Barakwal Myakhel from Quetta, Balochistan.

http://gandhara.rferl.org/content/balochistan-journalists/26619245.html

Intelligence agency official beaten for 'blackmailing a female student'

Intelligence agency official beaten for 'blackmailing a female student'

A junior grade official of an intelligence agency was beaten black and blue by the University of Azad Jammu and Kashmir (UAJK) students here on Thursday, allegedly for blackmailing a female student in connivance with a non-local academician.

Afterwards, the students brought the injured official to the office of Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) Muzaffarabad Irfan Masood Kashfi, with his mobile phone and that of the victim as an evidence of their allegations.

Both the phones were handed over to the SSP “so that he could see for himself the obnoxious texts sent by the accused to the victim.”

The accused, when confronted by some media persons in one of the chambers of SSP’s office, claimed that he would visit the University for “verification of students for the scholarships.”

However, he could not offer a plausible reply when asked that in which capacity he was carrying out such a task.

Later, student leaders Zubair Ahmed Mir, Farooq Mir, Raja Asad Farooq, Mehtab Abbasi, Asim Kamran and Mahmood Ahmed Mir held a press conference on the issue and called for exemplary punishment to all those involved in the heinous act of blackmailing female students for carnal desires.

They alleged that the accused official in connivance with Mr Abdul Majeed Niazi, Director, Institute of Education, UAJK, started texting her from September 26 initially to facilitate her scholarship, while introducing himself as Captain Sheraz from an intelligence agency.

On Thursday morning, he arrived at the entrance of the UAJK’s City Campus and kept on pressing the girl through text messages to come out for a date with him, they said.  

As the victim had already shared her plight with a class representative (CR), dozens of infuriated students got hold of the accused on the main road outside the city campus and started beating him like anything, they added.

According to them, when the mobile of the accused was snatched, he claimed that it belonged to Mr Niazi, a resident of Mianwali appointed in the UAJK under Tenure Track System more than two years ago.

The student leaders further claimed that when they were bringing the accused to the SSP office, he begged them to let him go and in return he would share details about the network that blackmailed the female students.

Initially apprehensive of police, the student leaders however praised them at the press conference for their “positive attitude and cooperation.”

In the afternoon, the victim also recorded her statement before Deputy Commissioner Masoodur Rehman, wherein she reportedly said that she was being blackmailed by the agency official and the UAJK director.

When contacted, SSP Kashfi told this scribe late in the evening that since the accused claimed himself to be an employee of an intelligence agency, he had been handed over to them for trial by a military court.

“We have recorded evidence and statements of all concerned and the same has also been provided to the concerned military authorities for further action under the law,” he said. 

He said due to the alleged involvement of a UAJK director in this case, the police had also taken Vice Chancellor Dr Syed Dilnawaz Ahmed Gardezi on board, and the latter had committed to hold an internal inquiry by October 20.

 Earlier in the day, a UAJK spokesman said that the Vice Chancellor had taken serious notice of the brawl between the students and an “outsider” outside the city campus and formed a committee to hold impartial and independent investigations and submit its report at the earliest.

The committee is headed by dean faculty of science and engineering Prof Dr Mohammad Rustam Khan and includes dean faculty of arts Prof Dr Nadeem Haider Bukhari, director students’ affairs Prof Amir Farooq and his predecessor Prof Ikram ur Rasheed and coordinator BS (education) programme Prof Siddique Awan.   

“The Vice Chancellor has made it clear that no one can be allowed to vitiate the academic environment of the sacred institution and that stern action will be taken in case any varsity official was found guilty,” the spokesman said.

Tariq Naqash

Failing state and failing governments, Dr Farzana Bari

Failing state and failing governments, Dr Farzana Bari    October 03, 2014

The elected governments often come into power with the support of the establishment and are compelled to carry on the vital policies (in particular foreign and economic policies) determined and defined by the military establishment

The power struggle within the factions of the ruling class has embroiled the country in its worst political crisis. While the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI) and Pakistan Awami Tehreek (PAT) are all three pro-status quo, pro-establishment parties, they do represent the interests of different sections of the ruling elite. The PML-N represents certain factions of big business whereas the PAT and PTI represent the middle class and sections of the elite. Unbridled squandering of national resources, rampant corruption, patronage, bribery, absence of merit and breakdown of the rule of law in the country have attracted urban youth to the rhetoric of good governance put forward by the PAT and PTI. Establishing the rule of law and meritocracy is the genuine need and concern of the middle class. They feel that they cannot compete with rich business and the capitalist and feudal class within the system that is based on corruption and bribery. 

However, the middle class youth is unable to understand that the difference in political rhetoric and the slogans of a self-serving political leadership of warring political parties with the same economic programme will make no difference to their lives. The lopsided publicity of misdeeds by the Nawaz government while maintaining a deafening silence on corruption, human rights violations and the abuse of power by the real power holders in khaki expose the pro-establishment nature of the ‘container’ leaders. The urban youth, inspired by the fiery rhetoric of Imran and Qadri, is not politicised enough to understand or question them in their rage on the failure of the state itself beyond the failure of the government. 

In theory, the state and government should work in tandem. In Pakistan, the state and the elected governments seem to be competing and contesting for maximum power and control over the politics of the country. Hamza Alavi (a world renowned state theoretician) wrote in 1972 that the postcolonial state of Pakistan manages in competing but not contradicting the interests of three propertied exploiting classes, the indigenous bourgeoisie, the Metropolitan neo-colonialist bourgeoisie and the landed classes. He argued that, under Metropolitan patronage, the bureaucratic-military oligarchy is allowed to mediate amongst these competing interests. There is no classical bourgeoisie in Pakistan. The ruling elite is an evil nexus of the military hierarchy, the feudal aristocracy and obscurantist capitalists. This lays bare the reactionary nature of the present ruling classes. The elected governments often come into power with the support of the establishment and are compelled to carry on the vital policies (in particular foreign and economic policies) determined and defined by the military establishment. The present political chaos in the country is the result of an internal contradiction and power struggle of the ruling elite belonging to the military, feudal and capitalist class. 

The misplaced priorities of the security state, lack of investment in human capital, state patronage of religious, fundamentalist and sectarian outfits, terrorism and the economic collapse have all created a legitimacy crisis for both the state and governments. In our resource-rich country, more than 60 percent people are living below the poverty line, 40 million have no access to clean drinking water and sanitation facilities, 25 million children are out of school and 260 women die per 10,000 live births, the highest maternal mortality rate in the region. Our country is at the top of the list where gender-based violence is most prevalent and more than 20 million people are internally displaced due to terrorism and military operations. Crushing poverty, unemployment, ethnic, religious and sectarian conflicts and malfunctioning institutions have created a legitimacy crisis for the government.

The failure of the present government to deliver on public services is being fully exploited by Qadri and Imran Khan. However, both leaders tell half the story of governance failure to the people at large. They openly criticise the government for accountability and functionality failure but they are unwilling to hold the military establishment responsible for transcending its constitutional role and claiming a share in political power. This need of political indulgence on the part of the military aristocracy stems from its economic intervention whereby, in the last few decades, it has become the largest entrepreneur in industry, agriculture and the services sectors, not to say anything about its role in the informal sector or the black economy. 

Without challenging the status quo and the establishment, no political party can solve the myriad problems faced by the oppressed masses. The empty slogan of parliamentary democracy will not result in social justice within the social context of class exploitation and gender oppression. People must understand that democracy in the context of inequalities is no more than merely a technical, expensive electoral exercise that further strengthens the existing power hierarchies in society. It is not just the government that is teetering at the brink; it is the whole system and the state that is in the throes of terminal decay and drenched in violent crisis. The working classes need an alternative party and a programme to replace this corrupt and inept political spectrum and the rotten state where they can be candidly represented and be in control of the policies through a genuine democracy. Such a democracy is only possible where the role of finance and monopoly capital is abolished.

The writer is a human rights activist and university professor and can be reached at drfarzanabari@gmail.com and on Twitter @drfarzanabari

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/03-Oct-2014/failing-state-failing-governments

Divisions Could Weaken US Led Coalition in Iraq and Syria

Divisions Could Weaken US Led Coalition in Iraq and Syria

SEPTEMBER 29, 2014 | 1439  Print  Text Size 

Summary

Over the past week, the U.S.-led coalition carrying out airstrikes against Islamic State positions in Iraq and Syria has expanded to include several new members. This has enhanced its overall combat power and spread the burden more equitably. The British parliament voted Sept. 26 to join the group and has already commenced airstrikes over Iraq. Denmark and Belgium also decided to participate in direct combat operations. These new partners join two European peers, France and the Netherlands, as well as Australia. Notably, these six countries have chosen to restrict their combat roles to Iraq. This contrasts with the role of the United States' five Arab partners — Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates — which have been carrying out airstrikes with the United States in Syria since operations expanded there Sept. 23.

This odd division of labor does not operate in the interest of efficiency but is instead an artifact of the complicated and juxtaposed reality on the ground and in the political arena. The battleground against the Islamic State is ostensibly divided between the sovereign states of Iraq and Syria. In reality, however, it is a single space spread over what has become an imaginary border. The divided coalition reflects the members' divergent political views on how to manage the respective situations of Iraq and Syria. Ultimately, the arrangement artificially separates what should be treated as a single battlefield and a single enemy. This weakens the coalition, confuses desired outcomes and often limits operations to what will appease all members.

Analysis

The coalition's division of the battle space into two parts has already led to differences in target selection. Since earlier limited U.S. operations in Iraq expanded into Syria, the United States and Arab coalition members have focused on critical infrastructure in Syria that supports Islamic State operations in Syria and Iraq. This has included command centers, finance operations, supply depots and, most recently, oil refineries. The coalition's strategy in Syria has been to degrade the Islamic State's military capabilities through destruction or disruption of the critical assets that support it.

The strategy in Iraq, however, has been quite different. There, the focus of air campaigns has been to buttress ground operations. This has translated into close air support for Kurdish peshmerga and national government forces, as well as strikes aimed at destroying Islamic State military supplies, vehicles and heavy weapons used in operations against those forces. This divergence stems in part from the different tactical situations in each country: In Iraq the coalition is operating in direct coordination with local forces, whereas in Syria efforts to facilitate anti-Islamic State ground attacks are in the early stages, with only the first steps having been taken to train Syrian anti-regime rebels in Saudi Arabia.

But these disparate tactical realities are only part of the picture. The primary differences between these operations are explained by the imperatives of the partners operating in Iraq and in Syria. The United States' Sunni Arab partners have an interest in participating in the operations against the Islamic State in Syria. Degrading the Islamic State's capabilities there takes pressure off of anti-regime rebels currently fighting Damascus and Islamic State forces simultaneously. The United States' reliance on support from these Sunni Arab countries, however, presents the risk that the core mission in Syria will be stretched in two different directions. The United States aims to cripple the Islamic State without directly targeting Syrian President Bashar al Assad. The Sunni Arab states, though, want to dislodge al Assad's Iran-friendly regime and weaken the position of Lebanese-based Shiite militant group Hezbollah, which is assisting the Syrian government.

Risks to Cohesion

Conversation: U.S.-Led Bombing Raid Commences in Syria

For their part, Australia and the coalition's European members have a different set of interests from their Arab partners. Because a large number of Islamic State foreign fighters originated in Europe, these governments fear that the militants could at some point return home and threaten national security. The Islamic State has also taken European hostages and continues to be a source for radicalization inside Europe. This means that these states have compelling reasons for carrying out strikes against the Islamic State regardless of its area of operation. All six of these powers, however, have chosen not to operate over Syria without a clear mandate from the United Nations. In European countries especially, military intervention is a touchy political subject; approval for any type of direct involvement typically requires the support of parliament, putting tight electoral constraints on such operations. These limits are less severe in the case of Iraq, where the coalition is delivering assistance to a host nation requesting help rather than conducting a military intervention in a country without coordinating with its government.

The division of the coalition into two separate areas does not necessarily limit its military capabilities, but it does pose serious risks to its cohesion and, by extension, its ability to sustain effective operations over Syria in particular. Because of the Arab states' direct interest in the outcome of the Syrian civil war, they may try to push the United States toward extending air operations to targets of the al Assad regime. This is something the United States is unwilling to do, in part because it would carry a much higher logistical cost. But if such a disagreement were to threaten operations over Syria, the Europeans' reluctance to extend their own activities into Syria would seriously limit the coalition. The United States would also risk being perceived as the sole actor on the Syrian side of the battle, rather than part of an international coalition, and this could result in significant blowback on the ground. At the same time, disagreements on the scope of operations in Syria could also constrain the effectiveness of strikes by limiting the target set to the bare minimum to which all parties can agree.

As it stands, the U.S.-led coalition is fragile. When something is this delicate and complicated, it is hard to take the decisive action required to degrade and contain a dynamic opponent such as the Islamic State.

Read more: Divisions Could Weaken U.S.-Led Coalition in Iraq and Syria | Stratfor
Follow us: @stratfor on Twitter | Stratfor on Facebook

Pakistan terms Kashmir a legal issue, demands plebiscite

Pakistan terms Kashmir a legal issue, demands plebiscite

Pakistan on Thursday asserted that Kashmir is a “legal issue” and must be resolved through plebiscite as per the aspirations of the Kashmiri people.

At the weekly briefing in Islamabad, Foreign Office spokesperson Tasnim Aslam also made it clear that India-Pakistan talks were not a substitute to the U.N. resolutions on Kashmir which envisage plebiscite in the region.

“Kashmir is a legal issue also and its legal position demands that the dispute must be resolved as per the aspirations of Kashmiri people through plebiscite,” she said.

Ms. Aslam said that Simla Agreement between the two countries does not make U.N. resolutions ineffective.

Her remarks come within days of Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif raking up the Kashmir issue at the U.N. General Assembly where he said the U.N. had passed resolutions to hold a plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir more than six decades ago.

“The people of Jammu and Kashmir are still waiting for the fulfilment of that promise,” Mr. Sharif said.

India had strongly rejected the “untenable comments” made by Mr. Sharif, asserting that the people of the State have peacefully chosen their destiny in accordance with universally accepted democratic principles.

Speaking at the UNGA, Prime Minister Narendra Modi had offered to engage in a serious bilateral dialogue “without the shadow of terrorism” while asking Pakistan to create an “appropriate environment” for that.

At Thursday’s briefing, Ms. Aslam also claimed that India never responded positively on Pakistan's proposals to resolve the Siachen issue and for declaring Siachen a Peace Park including demilitarisation of the territory.

The Foreign Office spokesperson termed that Indian policy towards resolution of Siachen as “inflexible”.

Former President Pervez Musharraf had claimed that Pakistan and India were close to clinching a deal on Siachen during his tenure. Ms. Aslam said India and Pakistan would have to resume talks for the sake of sustainable peace in the region.

India had called off Foreign Secretary-level talks in August after Pakistan's High Commissioner in New Delhi Abdul Basit had met Kashmiri separatist leaders ahead of the meeting, ignoring India's warning that the move could derail the parleys.Ms. Aslam saw nothing wrong in Mr. Basit’s meeting with Hurriyat leaders, saying Pakistan regularly consults with them.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/south-asia/pakistan-terms-kashmir-a-legal-issue-demands-plebiscite/article6468376.ece

Punjabi Lecturers and ISI man abused Kashmiri student girls in Muzaffarabad

Punjabi Lecturers and ISI man abused Kashmiri student girls in Muzaffarabad

London         02 October 2014

It is sad to note that our Kashmiri daughters and sisters are systematically abused by Pakistani secret agency officials and Punjabi teaching staff in Muzaffarabad.

According to details provided by Ifzal Suleria, President of Kashmir National Party, Pakistani Administered Kashmir, Professor Majeed Niazi from Pakistani Punjab and three other Lecturers from the same region are involved in the scandal. They deliberately target innocent female students and award them low marks that they could be manipulated and blackmailed to fulfil their satanic desires.

This matter was brought to the attention of the University officials by a famous NSF leader Kamran Baig last year; but the University officials decided to take no action against the culprits because of pressure from some quarters.

People belonging to the secret agency of Pakistan are also involved in abusing and harassing female Kashmiri girls. Wasim Malik, Chairman of Kashmir Students Federation told me that these Punjabi Professors deliberately give poor marks to the Kashmiri girls, and then their details are passed on to the Secret agencies who promise them to help them to get higher marks and a scholarship. By this method they trap innocent girls who are systematically abused by these evil men.

Wasim Malik said, this time the girl in question was asked by the ISI man to meet her that he could get her marks increased and get her a scholarship. The girl was innocent, but she belonged to a decent family, and after discussing it with other students she invited the ISI man in the university where he was caught by students and beaten up.

Student leaders like Zubair Mir, Tahir Mir, Farooq Ahmed and others, after beating the culprit, took away his mobile phone and presented him to SSP Irfan Masood Kashfi. To surprise of these student leaders, SSP Irfan Masood did not take any action against the culprit even though evidence was there in the form of his messages to the girl from his mobile. SSP was very polite and subservient to the accused man and was very harsh with the students.

Later on SSP Irfan Masood got Deputy Commissioner Masood Rehman involved in this matter. Masood Rehman is a former JKLF man, but after getting his job he is more loyal to Islamabad than the Pakistanis; and makes every effort to harass and intimidate Kashmiri nationalists. After some consultations they honourably let the ISI man go. However, they warned the student leaders to behave themselves otherwise they will have to pay a big price.

KNP leader, Ifzal Suleria strongly condemned this action of the ISI man, and the subservient Kashmir officials; and demanded that the culprits must be punished and all the Pakistani criminals who are employed here or stationed here to intimidate local people must be sent back to Pakistan.

Abbas Butt Chairman of the KNP and Dr Shabir Choudhry also condemned this shameful act, demanded that the culprits must be apprehended and punished. They said we want all the Lent Officers and other Pakistanis who are employed here or stationed here to be sent back to Pakistan. We don’t want their services, as honour and dignity of our girls is more important to us. They said people of Azad Kashmir must realise that they are not azad in any sense of the word. They are occupied by Islamabad and they treat us like an occupied territory.

*

Accused man of ISI after being caught and beaten up

 

ISI man sitting on the sofa under a fan - he was served with mineral water, while Azad Kashmiri senior officials discussed the case.

Issued by Dr Shabir Choudhry

Email: Drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com