Junaid Qureshi says CPEC disastrous for Gilgit Baltistan

Junaid Qureshi says CPEC disastrous for Gilgit Baltistan

Asks Kashmiris to oppose the plan

London, 6 Sept 2015: Speaking at a Conference in London, organized by JK International People’s Alliance on ‘The China Pakistan Economic Corridor and its effects on the region’, Junaid Qureshi  (writer and Head Diplomatic Affairs JKDLP) has termed the construction of the CPEC as illegal as it runs through Gilgit Baltistan which is part of Jammu & Kashmir state and future status of which still needs to be decided according to the wishes of the people living in Jammu, Ladakh, the Kashmir Valley, Pakistan Administered Kashmir and indeed, Gilgit Baltistan.

He emphasized he is not averse to economic development, solutions to Pakistan’s growing economic crisis or the eradication of poverty, but he believes that the origins of this corridor can be traced back to the Border Agreement of 1963 in which Pakistan ceded more than 5000sq miles of Jammu & Kashmir to China. Junaid Qureshi further said that throughout its history there have been many attempts to change the demographics of Gilgit Baltistan and that the China Pakistan Economic Corridor is a new and deliberate attempt to change the demographics of the actual Kashmir-Issue.

“China’s investment of 46 billion dollars and the purchase of eight attack submarines and six patrol vessels by Pakistan, which will elevate China as Pakistan’s primal arms provider, have all the ingredients to exacerbate the complexities of the Kashmir-Issue, threaten peace and cement China’s stake in Jammu & Kashmir,” Qureshi said, adding any kind of solution to the long standing Kashmir-Issue will only be jeopardized by these kind of intrusions.

“Chinese investment of billions of dollars guarantees their strategic interests in Jammu & Kashmir and will de facto make it one of the largest stakeholders in the Kashmir-dispute,” he added.                   

He further said that the people in Gilgit Baltistan are not in need of such corridors of exploitation. “They are longing for their political liberties for the past 70 odd years. The economic potential of Gilgit Baltistan is such, that had the people been masters of their own destiny and not treated as a colony by Pakistan, Gilgit Baltistan could finance the complete construction of the China Pakistan Economic Corridor,” he said.

Giving details about the potential of Gilgit Baltistan, Junaid Qureshi said that there is an abundance of water resources, minerals worth billions of dollars and an ocean of undiscovered tourism potential in this part of Jammu & Kashmir.

“The region harbors 5000 glaciers, including three of the largest in the world outside of the polar regions and has almost 2500 glacial lakes. The potential of power is 52.000 MW, while the requirement of the indigenous population is just 150 MW,” he said.

Talking about the impact of the CPEC on environment and ecology, Qureshi said that toxic gasses by heavy traffic flow and construction works related to the establishment of this corridor will only enhance the melting of the world’s largest reservoir of fresh water glaciers. All the departments of forest, power, tourism and minerals are currently under the direct control of the Gilgit Baltistan Council, which is headed by the Prime Minister of Pakistan. All the minerals of Gilgit Baltistan will be used as raw material for the construction of this corridor without yielding any royalties or benefits to the local people living there. The proposed shifting of the Sost Dry port from Gilgit Baltistan to Havelian will also result in devastating loss of business for the inhabitants of Gilgit Baltistan.

He said that, while we Kashmiris protest land transfers and other conspiracies to change the demographics of Jammu & Kashmir State in Srinagar, we must also protest against the China Pakistan Economic Corridor as it is an attempt to further destabilize the region in general and the Kashmir-Issue in particular.

He said that, the people of Gilgit Baltistan are equal stakeholders in the Kashmir-Issue and Gilgit Baltistan is part of Jammu & Kashmir State. He emphasized that the 2 million people living in Gilgit Baltistan are as much Kashmiri as the Kashmiris living in other parts of J&K State.

- See more at: http://www.dailykashmirimages.com/news-junaid-qureshi-says-cpec-disastrous-for-gilgit-baltistan-78606.aspx#sthash.yN6KEBTA.FvWXGVUu.dpuf

Fifty years on

Fifty years on

THE 50th anniversary of the Indo-Pak war waged in 1965 is an opportunity to acknowledge and pay thanks for the sacrifices of the men and women who serve in the Pakistani armed forces. Fifty years ago, Pakistan lost nearly 4,000 soldiers. Those staggering losses, however, do not tell the full story. The strategic mistakes of the military leadership aside, the heroism and bravery of the soldiers and pilots who fought to defend Pakistani soil should not be forgotten. To those ordinary armed forces personnel who displayed extraordinary courage, the country will forever owe a debt. Fifty years on, the militant enemy continues to inflict losses on the armed forces. In Operation Zarb-i-Azb alone, several hundred soldiers are believed to have laid down their lives. Rarely has a country called upon its soldiers to sacrifice so much and so often. The determined rank and file, the valiant ordinary soldier — they have been and continue to be Pakistan’s heroes.

How best does a country honour its fallen and injured? By honestly and truthfully reckoning with the past — even as it recalls the courage and sacrifices of its defence forces. Fifty years on, both India and Pakistan appear to be in denial. Unwise and disastrous as operations Gibraltar and Grand Slam proved to be — the extraordinarily reckless attempts by the military leadership to try and unfreeze the Kashmir dispute or even militarily wrest India-held Kashmir from India — they did not occur in a vacuum. Specifically, India had refused to negotiate with Pakistan on Kashmir; it attempted to amalgamate India-held Kashmir via the courts and legal instruments; it attempted to grab territory in the Rann of Kutch in the run-up to the 1965 war; and it embarked on a massive military reorganisation and upgradation after the Sino-Indian war of 1962. All those factors contributed to the anxiety and urgency in Pakistani policy circles. Therein lies a lesson for both countries: when conflicts are allowed to fester, unintended consequences can cause them to reignite. Refusal to learn that lesson had further disastrous consequences: the Indian territory grab in Siachen region in the early 1980s is widely considered to be the genesis of the Kargil conflict a decade and a half later. Unwise decisions tend to have terrible consequences, often years later.

That bi-national failure to learn from history is once again on full display. A jingoistic Indian government under Prime Minister Narendra Modi seems to revel in India’s supposed military prowess. Meanwhile, a military stretched and under threat in Pakistan appears more interested in giving a befitting verbal and visual response to India than focusing on the domestic security challenge. It is a familiar, if distressing, cycle. Fifty years ago, Pakistan and India fought a second war, a thoroughly unnecessary one. Fifty years later, civilians continue to die along the Working Boundary and the Line of Control. If calm does prevail, the real challenge would be to end the cyclical nature of Indo-Pak relations.

Published in Dawn, September 6th, 2015

http://www.dawn.com/news/1205176/fifty-years-on

The September war that was, I A REHMAN

THE September 1965 war days were, to borrow from Dickens, the best of times (for the people of Pakistan) and the worst of times.

For 17 days in September 1965, the Pakistani nation achieved a unity of action and purpose it had not demonstrated before and has not displayed since.

The people of Lahore woke up on the morning of Sept 6, 1965, to realise that what they had been told could not happen had come to pass. Contrary to the authorities’ belief that India could not attack Pakistan across the international border, its troops had actually crossed Wagah and then driven up to Jallo and withdrawn a little, frightened by the lack of resistance.

Several questions were asked in the aftermath of the conflict.

Within no time the undefended city found defenders who wrote with their blood tales of matchless valour and commitment to protect the motherland. Names of Sarwar Shaheed, Aziz Bhatti Shaheed and Shafqat Baloch rose to the top in the people’s pantheon of heroes.

The list soon grew with the addition of more heroes — Sarfaraz Rafiqui Shaheed, Cecil Chaudhry, M.M. Alam — who shot down many planes in the air and on the ground.

The Lahore front was soon stabilised and quick victory was won in the Khem Karan sector. The Lahorites could not decide what they liked better — the spectacle of aerial dogfight in daytime or the roar of Rani (a heavy gun) at night.

Soon afterwards the tank battle at Chawinda in the Sialkot sector caught the people’s imagination. The battle was grim but the spirits were high. Poets offered soul-lifting lyrics and Noor Jahan led a galaxy of singers to inspire soldiers and citizens alike.

It was wonderful to be buoyed up by belief in the justness of the national cause and confidence in the state’s capacity to meet the challenge.

But the heady feeling of victory faded quickly and many in Pakistan realised they had gone through a poor patch in their history. The story of those days has been told so often. How the victory in the Rann of Kutch was exaggerated, how the situation in Kashmir after Sheikh Abdullah’s arrest was misread, how the plan of sending guerrillas there did not work out, how the thrust towards Akhnoor was thwarted, and how Ayub Khan lost his nerve when his tanks sank in the marshes. Eventually, the international intervention and ceasefire came as a relief.

The question as to who won the war has been answered many times over. But soon afterwards questions began being asked; why was intelligence about India’s troop movement ignored? Why was the theory of inviolability of international borders accepted? Why were soldiers provided with old maps? Why was faith pinned on ‘guerrillas’? And why was US support expected when it had consistently declared that its arms could not be used against India?

The aftermath of the September war was far from pleasant. The objectives of Operations Gibraltar and Grand Slam were not realised and Pakistan’s case on Kashmir suffered a setback. The number of Kashmiris who backed Pakistan declined and so did Islamabad’s ability to invoke the UN resolutions.

For reasons still largely obscure, Pakistan did not derive full advantage of the Tashkent Declaration, whose denunciation started a new phase of Moscow’s disenchantment with Pakistan and ultimately persuaded it to sign the Friendship Agreement with India, without which the East Pakistan war of 1971 might not have ended the way it did.

In 1965, Pakistan received wholesome support from China and a number of Muslim countries — Indonesia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and even Afghanistan. Malaysia fell out of line and Islamabad had to break off relations with it. Factors as yet unknown caused these countries’ support to Pakistan to wane considerably by the time Islamabad landed itself in the fatal crisis of 1970-71

The 1965 war did the Indian Muslim some good in the sense that many of them stopped looking at Pakistan for succour and accepted, as Mohammad Ali Jinnah had advised them in 1947, their responsibilities as citizens of India.

The battle of Chawinda, which filled most Pakistani hearts with pride while tanks wrestled with one another, failed to impress the experts later on. They said the ritual of daily clash of metal, with neither side showing skill and capacity to clinch the issue, did not merit mention along with the tank battles in Africa during the Second World War.

On Sept 6, President Ayub appealed to the people to fight in the name of religion. His campaign for keeping faith out of politics came to an end. It was left to the editor of a Dhaka daily, Zahoor Husain Chaudhry, to remind him,” the more you swear by religion the smaller will your state become”.

One consequence of the war was a belated inquiry as to who had pushed Pakistan over the precipice. The story that Ayub was led up the garden path by his advisers is belied by his statements on the days preceding Sept 6. However, he dropped Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto from the cabinet, and Kalabagh forced a battle on him. The result: Pakistan was never the same again.

Meanwhile, throughout the 17 days of the conflict the East Bengal people were isolated from Pakistan and they were feeling defenceless and abandoned. The theory that East Bengal’s defence lay in West Pakistan was finally buried in 1971. The war directly led to the emergence of the Six Points.

Published in Dawn, September 6th, 2015

http://www.dawn.com/news/1205190/the-september-war-that-was

Flashback to 1965, JAVED HUSAIN

FLUSHED with victory in the Rann of Kutch in April 1965, Field Marshal Ayub Khan and his confidants thought that the time was ripe for wresting Kashmir from India by inciting the Muslim population to rise in rebellion against the occupying power, and then delivering the knockout blow by severing the road link between India and Kashmir at Akhnur.

On the night of Aug 5/6 1965, 5,000 lightly armed men slipped across the ceasefire line into occupied Kashmir. They were the Gibraltar Force. While the surprise lasted, they conducted a series of spectacular operations. Then the expected happened. Indian retribution against Muslim villages was swift and brutal; as a result, the locals not only refused to cooperate with the raiders but also started to assist the Indian forces to flush them out. To make matters worse, the Indian forces went on the offensive capturing Kargil, Haji Pir pass and Tithwal and threatening Muzaffarabad. With its fate sealed, the Gibraltar force disintegrated. In order to release the pressure being applied on Azad Kashmir, Phase 2 was launched.

In the early hours of Sept 1, 1965, the sudden thunder of 100 artillery guns stunned the Indian troops in Chhamb and heralded the opening of Operation Grand Slam. As Pakistani armour advanced rapidly towards Akhnur the Indian defences crumbled. Instead of exploiting this, the operation was suddenly stopped to effect the infamous change of command.

---

Pakistan was saved by the valour of its jawans, junior officers and air force.

---

In the process 36 precious hours were lost, enabling the Indians to reinforce the area. When it was resumed it was unable to develop momentum and was terminated when India opened up the Lahore front on Sept 6. Maj Gen Joginder Singh, then chief of staff of Western Command, in his book Behind the Scene writes, “The enemy came to our rescue.”

On Sept 8, 1965, the Indians launched their main offensive in Sialkot sector after crossing the Ravi at Madhopur Headworks. These headworks connect India to occupied Kashmir. In order to retrieve the situation, the field marshal played his trump card - the First Armoured Division. On Sept 8, it was launched in a counteroffensive to sever the Indian lines of communication serving their forces in the Lahore, Sialkot and Kashmir sectors, by seizing the main bridges on River Beas, east of Amritsar.

The counteroffensive made a brilliant start, yet, barely 36 hours later, it ended in disaster and was terminated. The reason was that instead of sending the logistics forward, the units were called back to rearm and refuel at nightfall on Sept 8 and 9. This gave a 24-hour respite to the Indians which enabled them to reinforce the area. On Sept 10 when the units advanced yet again, they encountered lethal fire by enemy tanks and anti-tank guns from the front and flanks.

The field marshal was no longer master of the situation and the Indians failed to exploit this. Both in Sialkot and the Lahore sectors, they were unable to overcome the defences as they kept attacking frontally and kept getting repulsed. Their senior leadership was as inept as their Pakistani counterparts.

In the final analysis, the valour of its jawans and junior officers, the clinical efficiency of its artillery and the daring exploits of its air force saved Pakistan.

Pakistan cannot afford to surrender time, space and initiative to the enemy, more so when it lacks depth and when the enemy enjoys superiority in resources. If it does, its limited military assets will invariably get consumed in defensive battles. The strategy of pre-emption is thus imposed on Pakistan in the same way it is imposed on Israel. Therefore, once the decision was taken to raise the stakes, the high command should have known that Operation Gibraltar would evoke a strong response and Operation Grand Slam, even a stronger one. They should, therefore, have planned to fight the 1965 war, which they had provoked, on their own terms.

Consequently, Gibraltar should have been followed up 24 hours later by Grand Slam along with another offensive in Ravi-Chenab corridor to capture Madhopur Headworks on the Ravi, and the area west of it. The Ravi could then have been flooded by releasing water in it from the headworks to preclude a counteroffensive by the Indians across it — their only option then would have been to launch the main offensive against Lahore from the direction of Amritsar and Khem Karan, east and south of Lahore respectively.

The destruction of Harike Headworks on the Beas/ Sutlej rivers and the main bridges on River Beas by the SSG on the same night as Grand Slam and the accompanying offensive in Ravi-Chenab corridor were launched, would have further curtailed the Indian operational options.

The field marshal had squandered away the opportunity to take Kashmir — “In war opportunities come but once, the great art is to seize them” (Napoleon).

The writer is a former armour and SSG officer.

Published in Dawn, September 6th, 2015

http://www.dawn.com/news/1205187/flashback-to-1965

Why India needs to call Pakistan’s nuclear bluff once and for all

Why India needs to call Pakistan’s nuclear bluff once and for all

Terrorism and veiled threats are used by it in an attempt to balance the asymmetry between the two countries' armed forces.

In a statement issued last week, Pakistan's National Security Advisor Sartaj Aziz said India shouldn't take his country for granted. Pakistan, he added grimly, has nuclear weapons. Other members of the Pakistani establishment have made similar statements in the recent past. But as Pakistan's army chief General Raheel Sharif knows perfectly well, Islamabad cannot use its nuclear stockpile - not even the small tactical battlefield nuclear weapons Pakistan is developing.

The reason is simple: A retaliatory nuclear strike by India would cripple Pakistan. The Americans know this. So do the Russians and the British. And of course, so does Pakistan.

Farooq Abdullah, the former chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir, had this to say about Sartaj Aziz's nuclear threat in an interview with Sagarika Ghose in The Times of India: 

"When a senior diplomat, a former foreign minister, talks about nuclear weapons, it's crazy. May I remind Sartaj Aziz about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Does he want to bomb J&K? India also has a bomb. When I went to Pokhran after the tests were conducted, I remember Vajpayee's words: 'He said we aren't the ones to use this first, we have this as a deterrence, only to tell people don't take us for granted. We can defend ourselves.' I want to tell Aziz don't think of the bomb because innocents will die. Sartaj Aziz saab you too will die if the bomb falls."

So is Pakistan's nuclear threat mere bluster? The short answer: yes.

In a recent article in the Indian Express, journalist Praveen Swami wrote why a Pakistani nuclear reprisal to a conventional Indian military attack would result in its annihilation: "Ever since Modi took power last year, Pakistan has demanded negotiations, seeing them as a cushion against possible Indian strikes in the face of a major terrorist attack. Large swathes of its troops tied down in counter-insurgency duties, the Pakistan army would be hard pressed to resist even a limited Indian push in areas like Kashmir's Neelam Valley. Though Pakistan often threatens nuclear reprisal, it knows it would be hard pressed to deliver on this threat in all but the most catastrophic scenarios, for the simple reason that annihilation would follow in short order. The truth is nuclear armed adversaries have engaged in small conventional wars: China and Russia clashed on the Ussuri river in the 1950s, and India and Pakistan themselves in 1999."

And yet, Pakistan continues to develop nuclear warheads at a rapid pace. Recent reports suggest it will have over 300 nuclear weapons within ten years - more than France or Britain. In a country beset by home-produced terrorism, there is always the danger that some of the small tactical nuclear weapons will fall into terrorists' hands and be used against Pakistan itself. Rawalpindi has a secure nuclear command and control centre. But breaching these safeguards by disgruntled elements with terrorist links can't be ruled out.

A recently declassified Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) document reveals that former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi mulled, before abandoning, an air strike on Pakistan's nascent nuclear weapons programme in 1983. According to one report, Israel offered, "as late as 1984", to bomb Pakistan's principal nuclear facility in Kahuta if India allowed "its jets refueling assurance, but India demurred."

Terrorism - war by other means

Pakistan created the Taliban in the early-1990s. Breakaway fractions of this terrorist group like the Tehreek-e-Taliban are relentlessly targeting Pakistan's armed forces. December will mark the first anniversary of the brutal Peshawar massacre. The Tehreek-e-Taliban murdered over 130 Pakistani school children, mostly those from families in Pakistan's armed forces. After years of battling these terrorists - terrorists the Pakistani army has created and nurtured - they remain a serious threat. Over a third of the Pakistani army is tied down fighting them and other militant groups across the country.

Since the Narendra Modi government took office fifteen months ago, Pakistan has tested its will with ceasefire violations across the Line of Control (LoC) and the International Border (IB). In October and November 2014, the Border Security Force (BSF) retaliated strongly to unprovoked Pakistani firing which caused several Indian casualties. The retaliation resulted in a large number of Pakistani fatalities as well.  

The Pakistani army and the ISI have helped launch a series of terrorist attacks on Indian soil. The same pattern has been repeated over the past few days. The increased infiltration by militants trained in terror camps on Pakistani territory has caused the deaths of Indian civilians, including women and children. Two captured terrorists, Naveed and Sajjad, have confessed under interrogation to being trained by the Lashkar-e-Taiba, the terrorist group the Pakistani army nurtures with funding, training and logistical support.  Pakistan, which has never won a war against India in 68 years, uses such proxy terror groups to wage a low-intensity conflict without committing the Pakistani army to a war it cannot win. Terrorism and veiled nuclear threats are used by Pakistan in an attempt to balance the asymmetry between the two countries' armed forces.

Now to the myths

There are four myths in the India-Pakistan relationship that the army, ISI and civilian leadership of Pakistan carefully nurse. They need to be dispelled.

Myth 1: "Pakistan, like India, is also a victim of terrorism."

Not true. Pakistan is the victim of its own terrorism; India in sharp contrast is the victim of Pakistani terrorism. India doesn't send terrorists across the border to kill Pakistani civilians. Pakistan does. To equate the two is a standard manufactured response of the Pakistani establishment - for instance, citing Indian involvement in Balochistan without providing a shred of evidence.

The Pakistani army meanwhile continues to commit genocide in Balochistan. It does not need India to spark an insurgency among the Baloch - they have been fighting Pakistan's occupation of their country which Rawalpindi forcibly annexed nearly a year after Independence. Remember: Balochistan comprises 44 per cent of Pakistan's total land area.

Peter Tatchell, the human rights activist, writes: "Balochistan was never part of the British Indian Empire. From 1876, it was a self-governing British protectorate, with Britain pledging to guarantee its security against external aggression. In August 1947, Britain granted Balochistan independence separately from India and Pakistan as it did with Nepal. This independence was short-lived. On April 1, 1948, Pakistan sent troops to conquer the Baloch people. They have remained there ever since, blanketing the country with hundreds of military garrison posts to suppress the people."

Myth 2: "Jammu and Kashmir is disputed territory."

It is, but not in the way Pakistan thinks. All United Nations resolutions require Pakistan, as a first step, to vacate Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). Once Pakistan does, all issues related to Jammu & Kashmir can be discussed. In short, PoK constitutes the core dispute in relation to Jammu and Kashmir. All else flows from it. Thus when engagement in the form of a composite dialogue resumes between India and Pakistan, as External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj noted - and once Islamabad adheres to the red lines drawn by New Delhi - Kashmir will be on the agenda, beginning with PoK.

The soft, porous border proposal discussed between General Pervez Musharraf and Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh nearly a decade ago is a non-starter. If implemented, it will give terrorists a free pass to Jammu and Kashmir. Over time Pakistan will occupy the entire state using a "creeping" strategy. It is fortunate Musharraf was removed from office before he could pull further wool over Dr Singh's eyes.

Myth 3: "Reciprocity."

India granted Most Favoured Nation (MFN) status to Pakistan in 1996. Pakistan promised reciprocal status several years ago. That promise remains unfulfilled. If Islamabad continues to be in breach of that commitment, India could consider withdrawal of MFN status to Pakistan. India is already moving ahead in the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) without Pakistan in crucial economic and diplomatic areas.  

This ostracism could apply to other fields. Cricketing ties, for example, will remain suspended. Can India really play cricket with a country that sends terrorists to kill and maim Indian women and children? Pakistan joined world cricket's boycott of South Africa's apartheid regime throughout the 1970s and 1980s. The pressure - including a global boycott of South Africa's all-white rugby team and other sanctions - led eventually to the abolition of apartheid. Politics and sport should, ideally, not be mixed - except in the case of extreme injustice, such as apartheid, or state-sponsored terrorism.  

Myth 4: "We are the same people".

We are not. Pakistan has over 190 million people: 90 million Punjabis, 45 million Sindhis, 30 million Pashtuns, 14 million Baloch, and 11 million others. Punjabis dominate the army, civil service and business.

Indians are far more diverse - in language, culture and religion. As the 2011 census reveals, India has nearly as many Muslims (172 million) as Pakistan - which is several times the number of Muslims India had in 1947. Pakistan too had a significant minority (of Hindus) in 1947. Today Hindus make up less than 1.6 per cent of Pakistan's population. In Pakistan, the Baloch are butchered, Shias murdered, Ahmadis outcast.

No, we are not the same people.

http://www.dailyo.in/politics/why-india-needs-to-call-pakistans-nuclear-bluff-sartaj-aziz-isi-terrorism/story/1/6059.html

After Ufa, AG NOORANI

COLLAPSE of the short-lived Ufa peace process caused deep depression among people in Indian Kashmir. They know only too well that the key to their liberation from the oppressive stagnation there is an accord on the Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan which satisfies their aspirations as well.

Gen Pervez Musharraf (retd) faced strong opposition in his own country in the last months of his presidency, while most in India were critical of him. The reaction in Kashmir to his problems provides an instructive contrast which explains the Kashmiri mood.

Right across the political divide, both the unionists and the separatists saw him as one who could clinch a settlement on Kashmir. In November 2007, chief minister Ghulam Nabi Azad praised him as a unique conciliator. Earlier in the same month, the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) president Mehbooba Mufti, said: “Naturally we are concerned. We have a sentimental and geographical affinity with Pakistan.” She defended Musharraf’s Provisional Constitution Order of 2007.

Meanwhile, Shabbir Shah, a separatist, said at the time that the Emergency was a necessary step for Pakistan’s stability.

---

The Mufti regime has shown no concern for Kashmiri self-respect.

---

Now the omission of any reference to Kashmir in the Ufa statement has been sharply criticised. The Narendra Modi government is unlikely to take any substantial steps towards restoration of the autonomy of Indian Kashmir.

The PDP, supposedly the senior partner in the coalition, bows to the BJP’s diktat for fear of offending the BJP government at the centre and losing power. Indian Kashmir is unique. There was complete shutdown on two Independence Days; on Aug 14 (Pakistan) and on Aug 15 (India).

The Mufti regime has not only abandoned all its electoral promises but also all concern with Kashmir’s identity and self-respect. Section 144 of the constitution of J&K refers to the latter’s flag, saying it “shall be rectangular in shape and red in colour with three rectangular white vertical strips of equal width next to the staff and white plough in the middle with handle facing the strips”. All holders of office under this constitution are required to “bear true faith and allegiance” to it.

The PDP-BJP coalition assumed office on March 1 this year. But in less than a fortnight there was a retreat on several issues. Kashmir’s flag was one of them.

On March 12, a government circular said that it had, under Indian Jammu & Kashmir’s constitution, the “same sanctity and position as the national flag”. “The flag shall always be hoisted jointly with India’s national flag on the buildings, housings, and shall be used on the official cars of constitutional authorities.” The circular was swiftly withdrawn.

The highly respected Syed Ali Shah Geelani has long been under house arrest. He is not permitted even to join the congregational prayers in a mosque on Fridays. Mirwaiz Umar Farooq has also had to put up with curbs of all sorts. If the PDP held out any hope of relief, that hope lies shattered today.

None had the slightest expectations from Farooq Abdullah or his son Omar. Their eyes have ever been transfixed on New Delhi with hopes of grabbing any crumbs which the men at the high table of power in New Delhi choose to throw at them.

Farooq Abdullah told a former chief of RAW, A.S. Dulat, “I’m not like father; I’m not going to follow my father’s politics. I don’t intend to spend 23 years in jail. I’ve figured out that to remain in power here you have to be on the right side of Delhi and that’s what I’m going to do.” He cannot conceive of life without power and will sell his soul to secure it.

This stripping of all subterfuge has resul­ted in the appearance of unionist leaders, Mufti Mohammed Sayeed and Farooq and Omar Abdullah in the stark hideous shape of carpetbaggers. But, the separatists are hopelessly divided.

Is it, then, surprising that there has been a surge in militancy ever since the PDP-BJP coalition came to power? The majority of recruits are locals of whom very many are highly educated with scant deference to the old leadership.

Dulat noted: “Significantly, of late Kashmiri boys involved in militancy are more highly educated and from better stock.” Kashmir INK, a new Srinagar monthly, carries this month a revealing report on the new militant. He is bold, and very adept in using modern gadgets to spread the word and enlist support.

The Modi government is unlikely to reach out to Kashmiris to address their concerns. Their only hope lay in improvement in relations between Pakistan and India. The fortnight after Ufa has shattered it. The consequences will be dangerous and far-reaching unless and until the two countries begin seriously to resolve the Kashmir dispute.

The writer is an author and a lawyer based in Mumbai.

Published in Dawn, September 5th, 2015

http://www.dawn.com/news/1204961/after-ufa

'History in Pakistan has been badly treated', MALEEHA HAMID SIDDIQUI

'History in Pakistan has been badly treated', MALEEHA HAMID SIDDIQUI

KARACHI: With Pakistan just two days away from observing Defence Day and marking the 50th anniversary of the 1965 war, historian and political economist Dr S. Akbar Zaidi dispelled ‘the victory myth’, saying that there can be no a bigger lie, as Pakistan lost terribly.

People are unaware of this fact because the history that is taught in Pakistan is from an ideological viewpoint, said Dr Zaidi during his thought-provoking lecture titled ‘Questioning Pakistan’s history’. “Students are not taught the history of the people of Pakistan rather it is focused on the making of Pakistan,” he said.

The event was organised by the Faculty of Social Sciences, Karachi University.

Dr Zaidi who also teaches history at the Institute of Business Administration, Karachi, began his lecture by raising a couple of questions: what is Pakistan’s history and is there a need to question Pakistan’s history. And when was Pakistan formed? Aug 14, 1947 or Aug 15, 1947? For him the fact we are still talking about historical events 68 years later that are apparently settled is interesting. “These events and questions have not been settled. They are constantly being reinterpreted, this is because history does not die, it keeps reliving by questioning facts and truths.”

Coming to the question when was Pakistan created, he said one obvious answer is it did so on Aug 14, 1947 but he read out an excerpt from a Pakistan Studies textbook in which it was claimed it came into being in 712AD when the Arabs came to Sindh and Multan. “This is utter rubbish!” he exclaimed, rejecting the textbook account. He said the first interaction with Muslims and Arabs occurred in Kerala in South India for trading purposes.

Some historians claim the genesis of Pakistan lie in the Delhi Sultanate or the Mughal Empire. He, however, reminded everyone that the India as we know today did not exist during the Mughal era. It was during the 19th century the concept of nation-state was formed. There are others who state Sir Syed Ahmed Khan laid the foundation for Pakistan. Dr Zaidi felt this statement was partially true, because Sir Syed always maintained that Muslims should get their rights but he had also said: “Hindus and Muslims are the two eyes of the beautiful bride that is Hindustan. Weakness of any of them will spoil the beauty of the bride.”

The 1940 Pakistan Resolution called for the recognition of Muslims within Hindustan and not for a separate entity, Dr Zaidi added.

Social history

He then led the debate towards the questions: “Is the history of Pakistan, a history of the people of Pakistan or is it the making of Pakistan?”As far as he knew everyone is taught a history that includes the Mughals, freedom movement, the Quaid-i-Azam leading the All India Muslim League etc but was completely unaware about the history of the Baloch and the Pakhtun. “I cannot understand Pakistan’s history without knowing the history of the Baloch, Pakhtun, Punjab, Shah Abdul Latif and his relationship with the land.”

He said he was ashamed as a Karachiite that he had been unaware of Sindh’s history. It was important to know about indigenous histories because the “issues we are confronted with, we would have a better understanding in dealing with them”. He gave the example of East Pakistan to illustrate this point. “East Pakistan has been erased from memory. The Bengalis of East Pakistan have been reduced to they were traitors, India interfered and East Pakistan decided to separate. But what about Pakistan Army’s role in its separation?”

According to Dr Zaidi, history in Pakistan has been badly treated due to several reasons. Students are forced to study history or Pakistan Studies as a compulsory subject and hence the focus is just to pass the exam and get over with it. It is focused on rulers and generals and not on the social history. He highlighted another important reason for history getting a step-motherly treatment, citing that it is a subject that is taken when a student is unable to get admission in other departments in universities.

A robust question and answer session followed the talk during which students and teachers wanted to know why they were being taught distorted version of history, why the contribution of religious minorities to cities such as Karachi, Lahore and Peshawar was not mentioned in their textbooks, why does one have to wear separate identities and how can identification crisis be resolved to make Pakistan into one nation.

Dr Zaidi responded to these queries, explaining that Parsis and Hindus contributed hugely in the educational development of Karachi and in a similar manner the Sikhs in Punjab. “History in Pakistan is taught from an ideological viewpoint. Pakistan needs to be seen as a geographical entity.”

Referring to the distorted history, he said: “With the celebration of the victory in the 1965 war round the corner, there can be no bigger lie that Pakistan won the war. We lost terribly in the 1965 war.”

He appealed to the attendees to read Shuja Nawaz’s book Crossed Swords that exposed the reality of the war.

As for wearing separate identities, he replied there was no need to do so. “I can be a Sindhi, Hindu and Pakistani simultaneously.” He added that the diversity of nations should be acknowledged, since nationalities could not be imposed on people.

Published in Dawn, September 5th, 2015

http://www.dawn.com/news/1204953