Human Rights Groups Call for Ban of Killer Robots, BY LAUREN WALKER

Human Rights Groups Call for Ban of Killer Robots

BY LAUREN WALKER 

Rapid technological innovation has revolutionized warfare; it has pulled soldiers away from war’s front lines and gradually replaced them with advanced weaponry. Drones, for instance, covertly strike targets around the globe as their operators sit safely elsewhere. But humanity is now on the cusp of developing “killer robots,” or fully autonomous weapons capable of killing without operators, and human rights defenders want them banned.

In a report released on Thursday, Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Harvard Law School jointly call for the weapons to be declared unlawful by international treaty before they become a reality. Though fully autonomous weapons do not exist yet, technology is moving in that direction; Israel’s Iron Dome is programmed to respond to incoming explosives on its own andprojects looking to enhance the autonomy of drones are in the works. The authors of "Mind the Gap: The Lack of Accountability for Killer Robots" assert that under existing law, humans who manufacture, program and command the lethal robots of the future would escape liability for any suffering caused.

Criminal liability would likely only apply when commanders purposefully use robots to violate international law, which would be hard to prove, explained Bonnie Docherty, HRW’s senior arms division researcher and the report’s lead author. In terms of civil liability, it would be almost impossible, especially in the United States, to hold someone accountable as members of the military and contractors are given immunity from being sued by the victim of war. And when it comes to product liability law, there are even greater hurdles to providing the necessary evidence.

Try Newsweek: subscription offers 

“Accountability is not merely a legal requirement,” asserts Docherty. “It serves several important purposes. Without accountability there is no deterrence of future violation of international law, there is not retribution for victims who want to see someone condemned for the suffering they experienced and there is no greater social condemnation of individuals that used the weapons.”

The report argues that the decision to kill a human should not be delegated to a machine. Not only can a machine not be held legally accountable, but it is near impossible to ensure the robot complies with international law. How would it determine the difference between a soldier and a civilian? How would it calculate a proportional response?

Many defense-minded analysts see the potential of free-thinking machines to make nations more effective on the battlefield, relieve leaders of difficult decisions and reduce casualties. But the report aggressively attacks these perceived benefits.

While Docherty concedes that machines are able to think faster than humans, she doesn’t think this is necessarily a good thing. A robot could carry out an unlawful act before a human could prevent it, for instance. Without the human ability to differentiate between a combatant and civilian, she adds, these weapons could actually endanger soldiers.

Docherty also rejects the idea that the technology would save soldiers’ lives. By further removing soldiers from war, she says, it becomes politically easier for countries to go to war and increases the likelihood of conflict. “Other weapons, including remote-controlled drones, also separate soldiers from the battlefield,” she added. “While people have their own concerns about those, that’s another technology that would have the same protecting affect.”

The authors call for a prohibition on “the development, production, and use of fully autonomous weapons through an international legally binding instrument.” The report recommends an outright ban rather than regulation because once the technology is in existence, states will be tempted to use them. And one stocked arsenal is the gateway to the weapon’s proliferation and a never-ending arms race.

Docherty is optimistic that her recommendation will come to fruition because there is precedent for outlawing weapons—in 1995, blinding lasers were pre-emptively banned and cluster munitions were outlawed in 2008. Additionally, this particular issue has moved quickly through the international community. As the lingering existence of cluster bombs shows, however, a U.N. ban isn’t a guaranteed prohibition.

The report was released a week before an international meeting on lethal autonomous weapons systems is set to take place at the U.N. in Geneva. On April 13, a range of experts will discuss potentially adding fully autonomous weapons to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.

Correction: This article misstated the year cluster munitions were outlawed. It happened in 2008.

http://www.newsweek.com/human-rights-groups-call-ban-killer-robots-321208

Hellfire missiles in a hellish region, Lal Khan

Hellfire missiles in a hellish region, Lal Khan

April 12, 2015

 The one billion dollar arms sale to Pakistan recently approved and announced by US officials failed to stir the Pakistani masses from their deep indifference and inertia. The media also failed to whip up much jingoistic fervour. However, in a country with mounting debt, a crumbling economy and an impoverished populace, plunging ever deeper into the abyss of deprivation and exploitation, very few have wondered whether this arms sale could resolve any of their agonies. The war on terror is going nowhere, with periodic and irregularly regular vicious suicide bombings and explosions. How far this exorbitantly expensive procurement of armaments will help tilt the balance in this war of attrition is doubtful to say the least.

The proposed sale will include 15 AH-1Z Viper Attack Helicopters, 1,000 AGM-114R Hellfire II Missiles and associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support for an estimated cost of $ 952 million. The package also includes 32 T-700 GE 401C engines (30 installed and 2 spares), 36 H-1 technical refresh mission computers, 32 helmet mounted display/optimised top owls, 17 AN/AAR-47 missile warning systems and system integration and testing. The principal profiteers will be Bell Helicopter, Textron in Fort Worth, Texas, General Electric in Lynn, Massachusetts, the Boeing Company in Huntsville, Alabama and Lockheed Martin in Bethesda, Maryland.

This is a country whose military has not fought a major foreign war since 1971 and which is being pulverised by domestic terrorism, violent crime, extortion, corruption, terrorist acts and kidnappings/ransom but has allocated seven billion dollars to the military, whereas the police and internal security departments received a meagre $ 800 million. In the next few weeks, Pakistan will buy Chinese submarines costing anything between five and seven billion dollars. With a callous ruling elite, state expenditures on health and education are amongst the lowest in the world. However, the arms race for conventional weapons between the two neighbouring nuclear-armed adversaries goes on ferociously.

Across the Radcliffe Line, it is well known that India plans to spend approximately $ 100 billion over the next 10 years on defence modernisation. India has increased its defence spending by 10.95 percent; in other words, it has increased from Rs 222,370 billion to Rs 246,727 billion. According to the Indian Defence Acquisition Council (DAC), India cleared a bulk of weaponry projects worth $ 13 billion in a bid to boost the country’s national defence preparedness. The DAC decided that six submarines would be made indigenously at a cost of about Rs 500,000 billion. It also decided to purchase 8,356 Israeli anti-tank guided missiles at a cost of Rs 32,000 billion and finalised the purchase of 12 upgraded Dornier Surveillance Aircraft with improved sensors from Hindustan Aeronautics Limited at a cost of Rs 18,500 billion and 362 infantry fighting vehicles at a cost of Rs 6,620 billion. This outrageous spending is in a country where 863 million people live in poverty, cut out of the economic cycle. The expenditures on the nuclear arsenals in India and Pakistan are probably the most fiercely guarded secret by the state.

As hundreds of millions of people across the globe go hungry, nuclear-armed nations spend close to $ 300 million a day on their nuclear forces. The production, maintenance and modernisation of nuclear forces divert vast public resources away from healthcare, education, climate change mitigation, disaster relief, development assistance and other vital services. According to Global Zero, annual expenditure on nuclear weapons globally is conservatively estimated at $ 105 billion or $ 12 million an hour. In 2010, India spent $ 4.9 billion, Israel $ 1.9 billion and Pakistan $ 2.2 billion just on maintenance and further advances of these weapons of mass destruction. The World Bank forecast that even if half of the known amounts had been spent on poverty alleviation in the last five years, poverty could have been all but eliminated. The South Asian subcontinent has 22 percent of the world’s population while it hosts 46 percent of its poverty.

Nuclear weapons expenditure on a world scale in 2010 was more than twice the official development assistance provided to Africa and equal to the gross domestic product of Bangladesh, a nation of some 160 million people. The Office for Disarmament Affairs — the principal UN body responsible for advancing a nuclear weapon-free world — has an annual budget of $ 10 million, which is less than the amount spent on nuclear weapons every hour. A UN report said, “The world is over-armed and peace is under-funded. The end of the cold war led the world to expect a massive peace dividend yet there are over 20,000 nuclear weapons around the world. Many of them are still on hair-trigger alert, threatening our own survival.”

The ruling cliques in India and Pakistan cannot afford a full-fledged war, nor can they sustain a durable and genuine peace. This explains a treacherous cycle of state of war and peace talks over the last three decades. They are constantly talking about poverty alleviation, yet their cruel spending spree for mutual destruction exacerbates infinitely. It is not an accident that these poorest of countries are amongst the top 10 purchasers of arms. Their ruling classes are some of the richest in the world. The same is the case for Russia, China, the US and Europe as the main exporters of destructive weapons to India and Pakistan. On the one hand, they can ill afford a military confrontation as this would create a conflagration and put an end to their massive investments and profits. On the other hand, brokering a durable peace in the region would spell the death knell for their military industrial complexes. From the US Congress to the Politbureau of the Chinese Communist Party, the corporate bosses of the arms manufacturing industry are the ones who really call the shots. Hence, all policies, domestic and foreign, are devised in accordance with the vested interests of these capitalist barons of the war industry.

Kashmir, Sir Creek and Siachen will never be resolved under this parasitic system of profits and dehumanisation. To accentuate religious fundamentalism, both the Indian and Pakistani ruling elites ascribe bigoted religious titles to their missiles produced and tested frequently. Yet there is little possibility of nuclear weapons or even destructive conventional weapons ever being used. However, the imperialists and the local comprador bourgeoisie are grossing billons in this arms race. These exhibitions are designed to whip up national chauvinism and religious hatred to crush the class struggle and mass revolts against exploitation and misery imposed by this coercive system.

There cannot be any peace or stability when one and a half billion people are tormented with harrowing repression and excruciating poverty. The continuation of the capitalist system is akin to a living Armageddon for the beleaguered masses of this potential paradise on earth. Only the socialist revolution led by the workers and youth can put an end to this madness of capitalism and armaments that is leeching the blood of the toilers of this historic land.

The writer is the editor of Asian Marxist Review and international secretary of Pakistan Trade Union Defence Campaign. He can be reached at ptudc@hotmail.com

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/12-Apr-2015/hellfire-missiles-in-a-hellish-region

Pakistan’s minorities under attack, Salman Ali

Pakistan’s minorities under attack, Salman Ali

Seventeen people were killed and 80 injured in two churches during the Youhanabad incident, which happened because of an acute failure of leadership and worsened for the same reason. It was a sad incident that left the entire nation in mourning. We all expressed deep grief and sorrow over the loss of innocent lives. We all know that Quaid-e-Azam, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, while addressing the first constituent assembly of Pakistan as its president, said, “You are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this state of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed, that has nothing to do with the business of the state. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one state.” These were the words of the father of the nation as the first governor general of Pakistan but for Pakistan’s minorities these words ring hollow.

The US Commission on Religious Freedom said in a report published in 2014 that conditions in Pakistan had “hit an all-time low” and governments had failed to adequately protect minorities and arrest the perpetrators of crimes against them. From 1947 to the mid 1960s, the governments of Pakistan were largely secular in policy and judgment. However, Ziaul Haq’s Islamisation and forced implementation of Islamic shariah law in Pakistan marginalised the Christian minorities and caused intense persecution. The government of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Ziaul Haq’s more stringently Islamic laws transformed Pakistan. In 1971, East Pakistan became independent as Bangladesh and a large chunk of Pakistan’s Hindus and Christians were delinked from Pakistan. Pakistan became a culturally monolithic, increasingly Islamic state with smaller religion minorities than ever.

Since 1947, minorities in Pakistan have faced several problems and threats from Islamic extremists, politically motivated violence or the Taliban. The fact is that there are no minority rights in Pakistan. In each province, all over Pakistan, murders of our minorities are rampant, making life miserable for them. Pakistan is a country in which discriminatory laws and violence against the minorities are a major concern, according to Human Rights Watch’s (HRW’s) 21st Annual World Report. The religious demographic of Pakistan consists of a majority of Muslims, who constitute 95 to 97 percent of the population. The other three to five percent consists of Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and Parsis. Here I am, a confused citizen of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Islam teaches brotherhood, peace and friendship with all religion, so why the killing and discrimination of minorities?

Without shilly-shallying I will agree that every politician since 1947 has used religion for their own benefits and political power, whether it was against the people or in their favour. In fact, all governments that have ruled Pakistan after 1977 have been unjust to the minorities and indigenous communities, which became evident in 2011 when a minority rights group ranked Pakistan as the sixth most dangerous country for minorities.

Article 2 A and 36 of the Constitution of Pakistan vow to protect the Muslim and non-Muslim minorities of Pakistan but are not being implemented practically. Since 1986, the blasphemy law has been frequently used to intimidate and persecute religious minorities and to settle personal vendettas. Hundreds of innocent people have been imprisoned, forced to leave the country or killed by religious fundamentalists.

Minorities should be given their rights and security but Pakistani officials, lawmakers and law enforcement agencies are ignoring this matter. New laws need to be passed against people who are not in favour of interfaith harmony to protect non-Muslims, who are threatened by the omnipresent bigots ready to spread hatred at the drop of a hat. A law that encourages Christians to speak out against the atrocities they face in the name of the blasphemy law, most often used by Muslims to settle personal scores, should also be passed. We are in dire need of legislation and parliament needs to act. It is my observation that peace, prosperity, brotherhood and tolerance have vanished from our lives. It is the responsibility of the majority to ensure the rights of the minority. But this process is not happening in Pakistan, where the majority is killing the minorities. In a country where sectarian terrorism has consumed thousands of lives and minorities have been forced to live in fear, Article 20 is nothing but hollow words.

Unfortunately, the minorities have not been given full political and civil rights in Pakistan. Under the law, no non-Muslim, no matter how intelligent or capable, can become the president, prime minister, senator, governor or the chief justice of Pakistan. The government must realise that the loyalties of the minorities cannot be won by depriving them of civil and political rights; they can only be won by giving them more opportunities to make decisions about their future. Our diversity should not be taken as a threat but as an asset. Only this can bring peace and harmony to various groups and people.

Sadly, I believe that minorities will not get all their rights in a flash. A continuous political process is required for the restoration of these rights, to create awareness amongst the Muslims and Christians living in Pakistan, to respect each other and share our values and wisdom for the good of all, to support freedom of religion, spiritual expression and the rights of all individuals as established by national and international laws. I believe that a democratic political process can maintain laws and rules to bring politically motivated violence, religious extremism and intolerance to an end, so that a liberal, moderate society can come into being.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/12-Apr-2015/pakistan-s-minorities-under-attack

The writer is a social and political activist who lectures in media studies. He can be reached at salmanali088@gmail.com

Separate zones for Pandits in J&K

It will create further rift between Muslims and Pandits: NC

Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Mufti Mohammad Sayeed has accepted the demand for creating separate zones for Kashmiri Pandits, a move that is seen by the vast majority in the Valley as the creation of “a State within a State.”

Mr. Sayeed assured Home Minister Rajnath Singh on Tuesday that his government would immediately start the process for creating the zones, which the Peoples Democratic Party describes as “composite townships.”

“The Chief Minister assured Mr. Singh that the State government would acquire and provide land at the earliest for composite townships in the Valley,” an official statement said.

They will not be exclusive Pandit zones, says PDP

With Chief Minister Mufti Mohammad Sayeed accepting the demand for creating separate zones for Kashmiri Pandits, Peoples Democratic Party chief spokesperson Naeem Akhtar said here on Tuesday that the “composite townships” planned would not be an exclusive area for Kashmiri Pandits and would be open to all other communities. He said the percentage or other structural details of these townships had not yet been decided.

“We will build flats across rural Kashmir and around the city which anyone can buy, including Kashmiri Pandits. While the move is to bring back Kashmiri Pandits into the Valley, we will not create Pandit exclusive townships,” Mr. Akhtar told The Hindu.

Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh had actively pursued the return of Kashmiri Pandits to the Valley and the creation of separate zones for them. He had written to the previous Omar Abdullah government and J&K Governor N. N. Vohra asking for identification of land for rehabilitation of Kashmiri Pandits.

Both the National Conference and the Congress, coalition partners in the last erstwhile government, said they disapproved of the move. During their time in the government, they had urged the Pandits to live with everyone else.

“We wanted Kashmiri Pandits to come back and live with everyone and not in separate zones. It is not a wise decision to create a State within a State,” J&K Congress president Ghulam Ahmad Mir said. “Such an exclusive township or satellite city will neither serve the purpose of reintegration of Kashmiri Pandits into society nor will it set a good precedent toward reconciliation.”

National Conference leader Ali Mohammad Sagar said the creation of such townships would “create further rift between Muslims and Pandits rather than bring them closer.” “It is a dangerous idea which defeats the very purpose of the return of Kashmiri Pandits. They should come back and live with everyone else, so that we have a Kashmir as we had then,” Mr. Sagar said.

Hurriyat leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani said that while he always welcomed the return of Kashmiri Pandits to the Valley, the creation of separate cities for them was unacceptable.

“The Pandits should come back to their own villages, towns and neighbourhoods and live where they want to like Sikhs and the Muslims do here. They are a part of Kashmir. But once the government is pushing for separate homelands and townships for them, it is a devious plan to create Israel-type settlements in Kashmir,” Mr. Geelani said.

Pakistani Kashmir To Expel 11,000 Afghans

Pakistani Kashmir To Expel 11,000 Afghans
APRIL 2ND, 2015 REGION
MUZAFFARABAD: Pakistani Kashmir is set to expel some 11,000 illegal Afghan refugees under a national anti-terror plan announced in the wake of the country’s worst ever militant attack, police said Thursday.

There are an estimated three million Afghan refugees living in Pakistan, either officially or unofficially, most of whom left their country to escape conflict in the 1980s and 1990s.

But they are viewed with deep suspicion inside Pakistan and routinely accused by authorities of harbouring militants.

“Under the National Action Plan against terrorism, some 11,000 Afghans would be expelled from Azad (independent) Kashmir,” senior police official Faheem Abbasi told a press conference in Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistani Kashmir.

The plan, which involved the outlawing of militant groups, registration of seminaries and crackdown on hate speech, was announced in the wake of a Taliban massacre that killed 154 people, mostly school children, in December.

Pakistan also lifted a six-year moratorium on the death penalty and announced the establishment of military courts in the case of terror offences.

Twelve suspects have so far been arrested over the school attack in the northwestern town of Peshawar, most of them Pakistani nationals, according to the army.

But the killings have hardened prejudices toward Afghan refugees, with more than 30,000 leaving Pakistan between January and the first week of February, according to figures released by the International Organization for Migration.

Pakistan plans to register the 1.4 million Afghan refugees currently living in the country illegally over the next four months, with a view to eventually repatriating them.

Abbasi said the home department was also set to outlaw 64 militant outfits in Kashmir that are also banned in the rest of Pakistan, and create a new anti-terror force comprising 500 personnel.

Pakistan has banned several dozen militant organisations on paper but many of them, particularly anti-India and sectarian groups, continue to operate with relative impunity.

Kashmir has been divided between India and Pakistan since the two countries won independence from Britain in 1947. Both claim the territory in its entirety.

Several rebel groups have been fighting Indian forces since 1989 for independence or a merger with Pakistan. The fighting has killed tens of thousands, mostly civilians.

Violence in the region has steadily declined during the last decade but armed encounters between rebels and government forces occur regularly. (AFP)

Dangerous Liaisons A Pakistan-Saudi Alliance

Dangerous Liaisons A Pakistan-Saudi Alliance

To say that the Middle East never ceases to surprise is an understatement. Players in the region throw curveballs just when they are least expected. This time, it’s Saudi Arabia’s turn to pitch, and the kingdom’s airstrikes in Yemen have initiated what could be a dramatic turn of events. For its closest client state, where Saudi Arabia goes, Pakistan follows with blind obedience.

When Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif departed for Riyadh at the beginning of March, few eyebrows were raised in Pakistan. The Pakistani premier was simply going to meet the newly crowned king and catch up with old friends in the royal court. There were murmurs of Saudis wanting Pakistani help to control Iranian influence in the region, but the honorable prime minister played hard to get and gave a tenuous no to Pakistan’s patrons in Riyadh. After receiving a $1.5 billion “friendly grant” from Saudi Arabia at the beginning of his term, Sharif was playing hard to get. The prime minister managed to receive the $1.5 billion without ever publicly committing to Saudi’s regional interests.

The Qatari emir soon made his way to Islamabad, talking about billions of dollars of investments and boosting trade ties with Pakistan. As the emir departed, a tanker carrying Qatari liquefied natural gas (LNG), the first such shipment, arrived, signaling the beginning of a deal estimated to be worth$22 billion. With this deal, something was brewing, but it was hard to read the signals coming out of Islamabad.

It was only when the Saudis announced the formation of a coalition and the initiation of airstrikes in Yemen against the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels that the pieces of the puzzle fell into place: Pakistan delayed making a decision and extracted a better deal from its patrons, and was now en route to getting embroiled in yet another regional conflict that would involve the extravagant use of proxies.

With a Pakistani delegation arriving in Riyadh on April 1, it was all but certain that a deal had been reached between the two countries. The Saudi news agency was the first to break the news, stating that a number of countries, including Pakistan, have “expressed desire to participate in the operation.” Pakistan’s Foreign Office spokesperson, Tasnim Aslam, iteratedthat “the Saudi request to become part of its coalition against Yemeni rebels is currently being examined.” Sharif gave the knockout punch, telling participants at a high-level meeting in Islamabad that any threat to Saudi Arabia’s territorial integrity would evoke a strong response from Pakistan. All three sources could have simply said that Pakistan will be handsomely paid for agreeing to join the Saudis and their allies in containing an Iranian threat in Yemen. Reports have already confirmed that Pakistan has provided naval support to the ongoing airstrikes in Yemen.

It was expected that the delegation would smooth over the details of the deal, agree upon the dollar amount, and dutifully dispatch an unknown number of forces to serve the Saudi monarchy. Pakistan’s nascent democracy and vocal media, however, created a hindrance for the government. Opposition partiesin Pakistan demanded an All Parties Conference to discuss developments in Yemen, and the prime minister responded by calling for a joint session of Parliament to be held on April 6.

Such was the seriousness of the debate that Imran Khan’s political party, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, ended its months-long boycott of parliament. As parliament debates the country’s policy with regards to Yemen, the Iranian foreign minister is also expected to visit Islamabad next week. Ongoing developments have placed Sharif in a tough situation requiring him to find a way to fulfill Saudi requests while placating the opposition at home.

While Pakistan will have to take into account its own interests, the vocal debate within Pakistan will be used as a bargaining chip to extract more concessions and dollars from the Saudis. Ultimately, financial constraints and the need to keep its patrons happy will lead to Pakistan’s engagement in the conflict. How significant this contribution is remains to be seen, but one can expect naval resources, fighter jets, and some form of special operations contingent to join the coalition.

Inflows of billions of dollars, a preferential LNG deal with Qatar, and promises for further “friendly grants” will allow Sharif’s government to deliver on its promises of economic development. However, getting embroiled in a clash between two regional powers — Saudi Arabia and Iran — split between civilizational and sectarian lines, is bound to have dramatic near- and long-term challenges for Pakistan’s security.

With violence against Shiites and minorities already out of control in Pakistan, a policy decision to exchange forces for dollars will surely feed the flames that are ravaging the country. It will also lead to a response from Iran, which will surely reply in kind along their mutual Balochistan border, doing everything in its power to make Pakistan pay for its alliance with the Saudis. Sectarian militant organizations — both of the extremist Shiite and Sunni kind — will up the ante, risking the unraveling of hard-fought gains against militants in recent months.

At a time when internal issues are causing irreparable damage to Pakistan, the decision to join an anti-Iran alliance with Saudi Arabia is futile, as it will antagonize Iran, fuel sectarian conflict at home, and distract a military fighting a war on its western front. Alas, for Pakistan, it signals a continuation of past trends, where the country has sold its strategic intereststo the highest bidder: like Pakistani pilots flying Saudi planes to repel Yemeni forces in 1969 or Gen. Zia ul-Haq taking billions of dollars in aid to help the mujahedeen forces against the Soviets in the 1980s. Sharif’s government is simply opening a new chapter in this established tradition.

It would be unfair to argue that Sharif — or the military — is in a position to deny the Saudis. Without financial independence, a nation cannot pursue an independent foreign policy. Given Pakistan’s consistent need for foreign funding to keep the economy afloat, it cannot say no to its patrons. This time around, it will be parliament and not a dictator making the decision. This is the only positive outcome from the situation.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/04/06/dangerous-liaisons-a-pakistan-saudi-alliance/

Fake heroes of Jammu and Kashmir, Dr Shabir Choudhry

Fake heroes of Jammu and Kashmir
Dr Shabir Choudhry     7 April 2015

History is not only distorted by conquerors; but it is also distorted by people of occupied territories. Both occupiers and occupied may have different reasons for distorting historical facts.

For example, some leaders of the occupied people, political activists or people belonging to resistant movement could tell people exaggerated stories of bravery and heroism to keep up the morale of the occupied people.  Furthermore, some people from the occupied territory could be eulogizing their relatives and friends to boost the morale of their tribe or family; or to demonstrate how brave their elders were.

More I look into this matter, more myths I confront. At one time in a small place like Valley of Kashmir, there were around 150 Commanders in Chief fighting India. This should be compared with the fact that in real life each country, no matter how big or powerful it is, has only one Commander in Chief. But in Kashmir Valley there were around 150 militant groups and each group had a Commander in Chief. Officers spend their lives in army to become a General or a Commander in Chief. In Kashmir, anyone with half dozen militants with very basic training and few pistols and some AK47 rifles could have one Commander in Chief.

Last week I had a chat with a man who claimed to be a grandson of ‘Major General Raja Sakhi Delair Khan’. I politely told him that Sakhi Delair was not a Major General. He strongly disagreed with me and asserted that his information was true. Again I politely said some soldiers during the 1947 war promoted themselves to officer ranks within months, as there was no proper command and control system in place.

At that time he asserted his grandfather was a Major General in the British Indian Army before the partition of India. He said he will provide me evidence and increase my knowledge on the subject. I knew for sure he was not a Major General even in Azad Kashmir army or in Pakistan army; and it was out of question that he was a Major General in the British Indian army; however, I didn’t want to hurt sentiments and pride of a grandson of Sakhi Delair Khan. I said I will investigate this matter and will inform him.

Sakhi Delair Khan, was he a Major General?

Sakhi Delair Khan belonged to Mangral tribe of Rajpoots, and hailed from Sehnsa which is in District Kotli. He served in the British Indian Army during the Second World War. He also served under Major MK Mirza. Major Mirza served as an Instructor in Royal Military School, Sarai Alamgir, near Jhelum; and many of his students became brilliant officers.

Before going any further, I feel it is pertinent to give account of how people earned military ranks or promoted each other in the war of 1947. Justice Yusuf Saraf, who researched on history and struggle of Jammu and Kashmir and produced two lengthy volumes, wrote:

‘I was told by a senior army officer that in the beginning of 1948 when he was on the Rajouri sector, a soldier in the rear, at distance of 10 to 15 miles, was supervising the despatch of supplies and sending a signed chit with each supply, detailing the material. In the morning when he sent the first chit, he signed it as a sepoy - a soldier with no rank, but gradually started building up his rank; when the last consignment was received at the other end in the evening, the soldier had signed the chit as Major.’ 1

Another example is narrated by Major General Akbar Khan, who writes: ‘Around Poonch two rival commanders had set up headquarters, both submitting reports to GHQ Azad, one signing himself as Captain and the other as Major. Then they promoted themselves to Major and Colonel. Then to Colonel and Brigadier, and so on, until both of them became Field Marshals’. 2

While Major M K Mirza who lived in Jhelum was away from home, Sakhi Delair Khan visited his house and left a message with his son. On Major Mirza’s return his son told him that Major General Sakhi Delair Khan came to see him. Major Mirza could not locate this name with the rank of Major General. Later on he discovered that it was Sakhi Delair Khan who visited his house, and left the message.

In the environment where his colleagues were promoting themselves to higher ranks, Sakhi Delair Khan did not want to remain behind; and he also ‘assumed the rank of Major General.3 During the battle for control of Pallandari, in order to out manoeuvre his opponents in a competition of ranks, it is reported that he was ‘made Commander in Chief and a War Council was set up with Captain Khan Mohammed Khan as President’. 4

Sakhi Delair Khan was not a Major General, or even a commissioned army officer; but that doesn't mean he did not command people or did not exhibit bravery and leadership. No doubt he was a brave man; and played a significant role in capturing many important posts including strategically important Azad Patan Bridge, Sarsawa etc. Sakhi Delair Khan risked his life many times, and moved fast to surprise his enemies. Also he played an important role in wars of Kotli and Pallandari; so he deserves respect and praise.

There are scores of other people in Jammu and Kashmir who were given titles, or they assumed titles themselves. These people did not deserve these titles. For example, how Sardar Abdul Qayyum Khan, Sardar Ibrahim Khan, Chaudhry Ghulam Abbas and many others on both sides of the divide deserve the titles they were given or assumed?

If we critically and impartially look at the events of that time and analyse roles performed by some people, they should have been punished for siding with our neighbours and working against interests and sovereignty of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. A man elects to join the army of Jammu and Kashmir, and takes oath of allegiance to be faithful to the State and the Maharaja. He receives uniform, training, weapons, food and a salary for his services; and when a difficult time comes he sides with those who want to occupy Jammu and Kashmir and destroy Rule of the Maharaja. For his act of betraying his oath and trust, should he be regarded as a hero, a patriot or something else?

I leave this matter to the conscience of the people.
References
1. Kashmiris Fight for Freedom, Justice Yusuf Saraf, Vol 2, page 878
2. Raiders In Kashmir, Major General Akbar Khan, page 94
3. Justice Yusuf Saraf, page 878
4. Ibid, page 881
Writer is a political analyst, TV anchor and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of KashmirAffairs.Email:drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com