Gilgit Baltistan and the Great Game, Dr Shabir Choudhry

Gilgit Baltistan and the Great Game

Dr Shabir Choudhry    14 January 2016

A famous historian Peter Hopkins in his work ‘Great Game’ asserted that the ‘Great Game’ was finally brought to ‘an end. The two rival empires had at last reached the limits of their expansion.’ After Kashmir National Party study tour of the region in October 2010, I wrote:

‘The above lease (of Gilgit Wazarat) and developments clearly show that the ‘Great Game’ did not end as claimed by historian Peter Hopkins. If anything, a new dimension was added to this ‘Great Game’; and the British became more concerned about the designs of the Soviet Russia. To the British and other capitalist countries, Russia, under the Communists, was more dangerous and aggressive than under Tzar of 19^th Century.’ 1

Now because of the China Pakistan Economic Corridor enormous importance is added to these areas; hence a new chapter in the Great Game. The Chief Minister of Gilgit Baltistan, while protecting interests of Islamabad, as they have installed him there has stated:

Gilgit, Baltistan and Astore are disputed districts since they were part of the Dogra State of Jammu & Kashmir; however, Ghizer, Diamer, Hunza and Nagar districts are not disputed and therefore an integral part of Pakistan.

When Hafiz Hafeez Ur Rehman was not the Chief Minister of Gilgit Baltistan he met Kashmir National Party delegation and said: ‘We are all one, but we have been divided for so many decades. We were cut off from the rest of the State and we had no interaction; and because of this alienation there are problems of understanding views and difficulties of each other’. 2

He further said, “Our land is full of resources. We also have great location. We have potential to produce 86,000 megawatt of electricity, alone that can bring us prosperity and high standard of life provided we are in control of things....... ‘Our need is only 110 megawatt and we don’t even get sufficient electricity for our needs. Islamabad discourages foreign investment in this area, and creates hurdles. Our resources are controlled by a Pakistani mafia.’ 3

Hafiz Hafeez Ur Rehman further told us that ‘when he went for a conference in Srinagar; he was seen with suspicions, even though I was going to my own country which has been divided by force. In a reply to one question he said to one Pakistani agency man ‘I am going to my homeland and see how our brothers are living there’.4

It is clear he was talking about the entire region of Gilgit Baltistan and not certain parts; and his recent change in stance is to make things easier for his political masters in Islamabad that they can usurp Gilgit Baltistan, or some parts to pave way for the completion of CPEC project.

He told our delegation that he went to Srinagar for a peace conference, where he met a man in Srinagar who said to him: ‘Do you people have any integrity or faith in anything? Sometimes you send us guns to kill people and then send peace delegations. One agency trains us how to use guns and kill people; other agency informs Indians about us that they can eliminate us. Then another agency rejects previous policies and organises peace conference and oppose use for committing violence. Can someone tell us what exactly your policy is, and what are we supposed to do?’ 5

Legal Position

Irrespective of the views of individuals which are subject to change due to pressures or some incentives, we can prove from the historic documents that all areas of Gilgit Baltistan were, and are constitutional part of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. When the British took charge of Gilgit Wazarat they had a written agreement with the Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir. One only needs to look at articles 1 and 2 of the Agreement. Article one stated:

....but notwithstanding anything in this agreement the said territory shall continue to be included within the dominions of His Highness the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir.

Article II – In recognition of the fact that the said territory continues to be included within the dominion of His Highness the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir salutes and customary honours shall be paid in the said territory of the administration on the occasion of the birthday of His Highness, Baisakhi, Dussehra, Basant-Panchmi and on such other occasions as may be agreed upon by His Excellency the Viceroy and Governor-General of India. The flag of His Highness will be flown at the official headquarters of the agency throughout the year.

So no matter what Pakistani government and their foot soldiers say to usurp areas of Gilgit Baltistan, they cannot change legal and constitutional position. And no matter how nicely the Pakistani officials camouflage their designs, their position in Gilgit Baltistan will always be that of an occupier.

The rights the British granted to the Maharajah Hari Singh in 1935, the Pakistani occupiers are not prepared to give in 2016. Pakistan has total control of the entire Gilgit Baltistan and they regularly lease out very valuable areas to Chinese and other non local people without even telling the local administration. However, the Article IV of the Agreement with British on Gilgit Lease stated:

All rights pertaining to mining are reserved to His Highness the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir. The grant of prospecting licenses and mining leases will be made during the period of the agreement mentioned below.

New chapter of the Great Game

In October 2010, I wrote: A New Chapter of the Great Game is unfolding. In the past the main threat was from the Russia, now this danger is from other players with greater interest in the region. New threat is from China and the USA, with India also having keen interest in the region and ambition to revive the old Silk Route to boost economic and strategic goals....

...There is no doubt that Islamabad is facilitating China’s access to the Gulf, and in doing so strengthening China’s hold in strategically important areas; and this is of a great concern to America and India, as they feel their national and strategic interests could be endangered by Chinese assertive manoeuvres....

...It is debateable if India is capable, or even willing to do anything with regard to the above scenario, but the USA is not going to give China a free hand to dominate the region. It is believed that the Americans have also moved in to counter the Chinese threat. Soon after the floods in the summer of 2010, the USA under pretext of help for the flood victims sent a number of aircrafts which raised some eyebrows...

... China was not prepared to commit billions of dollars in a region which was disputed, and over which a major power (India) had a claim, so China demanded that Pakistan should determine its legal status. Under this pressure Pakistan hurriedly introduced ‘Empowerment and Self-Governance Order, 2009’, to ‘legalise’ the annexation of these areas. 6

After failing to acquire the desired success in Afghanistan, the Americans realised that the problems of Afghanistan could not be resolved without targeting Pakistan, hence they coined a phrase “Af-Pak” that resulted in focussing certain targets inside Pakistan. Now after growing relationship between China and Pakistan, one analyst coined a phrase ‘Chi- Pak’. He quotes a prediction of a former Pakistani army officer Agha H Amin made in 2012 as follows:

“……Pakistani politicians will remain the puppets of the military; terrorism will remain a tool of foreign policy while the Pakistani military runs the Pakistani state under a facade of PPP or PML or Tehrik-i-Insaaf….. There is no doubt that Pakistan will be a semi autonomous Chinese province by 2030 or so… Pakistani Baluchistan by 2030 would be a completely Chinese run show…” 7

Pakistani media has reported that China has urged Pakistan to settle legal status of Gilgit Baltistan, a disputed area former State of Jammu and Kashmir which borders China, as "China cannot afford to invest billions of dollars on a road that passes through a disputed territory claimed both by India and Pakistan." In view of this many TV channels of Pakistan arranged TV debates to assess advantages and disadvantages of making Gilgit Baltistan a Province of Pakistan.

After hearing this, people of Jammu and Kashmir from all sides of the divide expressed their strong resentment against Pakistani designs; and some even have threatened to resume a struggle against Pakistan.

On this issue a famous Pakistani analyst Ayesha Siddiqa, said this move also show ‘Islamabad’s desire to end the Kashmir conflict by formally absorbing the territory it controls — and, by extension, recognizing New Delhi’s claims to parts of the region it controls, such as the Kashmir valley. “If we begin to absorb it so can India. It legitimizes their absorption of the Valley,” she said.

However, one newspaper on Tuesday, 12 January 2016 reported that Chinese have downplayed reports about its reservations over the status of this disputed territory. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hong Lei told a media briefing that:

"The ownership of the Kashmir region is an issue between India and Pakistan left over from history and should be resolved through dialogues and consultations between the two sides." 8

It should be noted that China has not been neutral on the issue of the Kashmir dispute. Apart from occupying areas of Jammu and Kashmir in the war with India in 1962, China received a gift of Jammu and Kashmiri territory from Pakistan in 1963. Pakistan, which illegally occupies the vast areas of Gilgit Baltistan, gifted approximately 2000 square miles of the Kashmiri territory (Shaksam Valley) from Gilgit Baltistan, which helped China to link with areas of Aqsai Chin occupied in the war of 1962.

Also China calls areas of Jammu and Kashmir under Pakistan as ‘Northern Areas’; and term areas under India as ‘India-controlled Kashmir’.9 China has more than ten thousand troops in areas of Jammu and Kashmir under different pretexts, of course, they officially deny this. Intelligence reports confirm that China is busy digging more than 22 tunnels in Gilgit-Baltistan for deployment of missiles; and there are other areas which are explored for natural resources; and local owners of these lands are barred from going to these areas. 

True Kashmiri nationalists openly criticised Pakistan’s Kashmir policy and regarded Pakistan as another occupier; but Pakistani agencies have been fooling people in name of Islam and Muslim brotherhood. If Pakistan officially makes Gilgit Baltistan a province of Pakistan, and includes these areas in the constitution, that will be construed as a stab in the back.

People of Jammu and Kashmir from all regions will oppose this illogical and imperialist move. However, our protests and fight back may not deter Pakistan to change its course.

It will be a test for India’s claim that the entire State of Jammu and Kashmir is ‘an integral part of India’. Kashmir watchers and others with economic and strategic interests in the region will examine India’s sincerity to its claim; and India’s future ambitions and her ability to shoulder responsibilities in South Asia and beyond.

Furthermore, if CPEC project goes ahead as planned, it will give enormous powers and influence to China with regard to future of these areas. Then question arises, will India and America allow China with all her future planning and ambitions to sit in this roof of the world and dictate terms.

It is true both Nawaz Sharif and Narendra Modi were elected on the agenda of economic development, and powerful lobby with enormous economic muscle will not allow them to change the course and lead the countries to another war. However, for how long India and America will be held hostage to the threat of a possible nuclear war in the region; and allow encircling of India and proxy war to continue?

Wars cause destruction and kill innocent people; but the war lobby is very strong; and it is a big business. While tens of millions of people suffer as a result of wars, future of millions of people is also linked with the war lobby; and some have become extremely rich because of wars. In view of this and strategic reasons a limited and short war could not be ruled out.

The ball is in Modi’s court. He has an option to continue with the policy of his predecessors- ‘Abb kay maar aur daikh’ – hit me once again and see; or take a courageous stand which can ultimately enhance welfare of the people, and strengthen peace and stability of the region.

References:

1.    New Round of the Great Game, Dr Shabir Choudhry, page 11

http://www.amazon.co.uk/New-Round-Great-Game-Administered/dp/3639330846/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1452782944&sr=8-1&keywords=new+round+of+great+game

2.    ibid, page 77

3.    ibid, page 78

4.    ibid, page 78

5.    ibid, pages 78/79

6.    ibid, pages 12/13

7.    Chi –Pak’s GB Googly - deft move by Xi, by Lt Gen Prakash Katoch     11/01/16 World Affairs Journal. http://www.indiandefencereview.com/news/chi-paks-gb-googly-deft-move-by-xi/

8.     http://outpost.pk/international/823-breaking-china-downplays-reports-of-concerns-over-cpec-s-g-b-stretch.html

9.    Economic Times titled, September 2, 2010

Chi –Pak’s GB Googly - deft move by Xi

Chi –Pak’s GB Googly - deft move by Xi

By Lt Gen Prakash Katoch     11/01/16 World Affairs Journal

When Americans coined “Af-Pak”, both territories being overseen by US CENTCOM, perhaps there was also the déjà vu of the boundaries changing between the two unofficially or officially. Given those parameters, it would be appropriate to term China and Pakistan as ‘Chi-Pak’, more so as former Pakistani army officer Agha H Amin predicted in 2012,“……Pakistani politicians will remain the puppets of the military; terrorism will remain a tool of foreign policy while the Pakistani military runs the Pakistani state under a facade of PPP or PML or Tehrik-i-Insaaf….. There is no doubt that Pakistan will be a semi autonomous Chinese province by 2030 or so… Pakistani Baluchistan by 2030 would be a completely Chinese run show…”. 

Following Pakistan’s terror strike on the Pathankot IAF base, much noise has been made by Pakistan about condemning terrorism but Nawaz Sharif asking for more proof indicates the shape of things to come – that the so called investigations will get bogged down because of insufficient proof under the Pakistani legal process, as has happened in case of punishing the perpetrators of the Mumbai 26/11 terror attacks. At best some peripheral raids would be conducted with much fanfare while the perpetrators of the Pathankot raid are housed, wined and dined under ISI protection. While journalists in Pakistan who dare to expose the military-terrorist links are bumped off periodically, the judiciary too stays in line for obvious reasons. But that is not all the response post the Pathankot attack with India content that “ball is now in Pakistan’s court”. 

Pakistani media has now reported that Pakistan is considering upgrading the constitutional status of its northern Gilgit-Baltistan (GB) region, part of the erstwhile State of J&K legally ceded to India at the time of Partition, in a bid to provide legal cover the $46 billion Chinese investment into the China-Pak Economic Corridor (CPEC). The proposal would see the region being mentioned by name for the first time in Pakistan’s constitution, bringing it one step closer to being fully absorbed as an additional province of Pakistan. Quoting a Pakistani official speaking on conditions of anonymity, the report says, “China cannot afford to invest billions of dollars on a road that passes through a disputed territory claimed both by India and Pakistan.”

More significantly, according to Pakistani analyst Ayesha Siddiqa, the move could also signal Islamabad’s desire to end the Kashmir conflict by formally absorbing the territory it controls — and, by extension, recognizing New Delhi’s claims to parts of the region it controls, such as the Kashmir valley. “If we begin to absorb it so can India. It legitimizes their absorption of the Valley,” she said.

The timing of the above report indicates that perhaps there is a larger Chi-Pak game-plan and the Pathankot terror strike too perhaps was linked to it – orchestrated by the Pakistani military (as viewed by Bruce Riddell) on behest of China under President Xi Jinping’s “robust foreign policy”. At this juncture, one needs to look back to see the sequence of events that preceded the Pathankot strike and the surprise announcement of formalizing integration of Gilgit-Baltistan into Pakistan; summarized as under: 

·         In 1963, Pakistan gifts Shaksgam Valley to Pakistan. China says it will negotiate with whoever the area belongs to once the Kashmir issue is resolved.

·         In 1964, the China-Pakistan sub-conventional nexus is formed with Chou-en-Lai advising Ayub Khan to prepare for prolonged war with India and raise a militia to fight behind enemy lines.

·         In 2004, following ceasefire with India, Pakistan moves Sunni terrorist camps into Gilgit-Baltistan, experiments with mixing blood that doesn’t work following which institutionalized killings of Shias through proxies begins. Presently, the Shia population in Gilgit-Baltistan has already been reduced from 70% to 50%.

·         In 2005, China for the first time lays claim to entire Arunachal Pradesh as “South Tibet”, her earlier claim confined to Tawang Plateau. 

·         In August 2010, New York Times reports, “The entire Pakistan-occupied western portion of Kashmir stretching from Gilgit in the north to Azad (Free) Kashmir in the south is closed to the world, in contrast to the media access that India permits in the eastern part, where it is combating a Pakistan-backed insurgency. But reports from a variety of foreign intelligence sources, Pakistani journalists and Pakistani human rights workers reveal two important new developments in Gilgit-Baltistan: a simmering rebellion against Pakistani rule and the influx of an estimated 7,000 to 11,000 soldiers of the People’s Liberation Army.”

·         This was a time when China was objecting to ONGC Videsh assisting Vietnam in oil exploration on grounds of disputed waters while she sent troops into POK without reference to India, later saying China was undertaking only some development projects like hydel works.

·         On September 2, 2010, report in the Economic Times titled ‘China calls PoK ‘northern Pakistan’, J&K is ‘India-controlled Kashmir’, says China denied it had 11,000 troops in Gilgit-Baltistan region but referred it as “India Controlled Kashmir”.

·         Intelligence reports emerge that China is digging 22 tunnels in Gilgit-Baltistan for deployment of missiles, local owners of these lands are barred from going to the area. 

·         In 2011, China’s CCTV starts showing map of India minus J&K and Arunachal Pradesh. India lodges official protest but CCTV continues to show it during 2011 even after the Indian protest.

·         In 2015, Pakistani military courts come down ruthlessly on dissidence in Gilgit-Baltistan and Balochistan. Killings and executions with or without legal procedure are unleashed. 

·         In 2015, China blocked India’s move in the UN for action against Pakistan for the release of 26/11 mastermind Zaki Ur Rehman Lakhvi from jail. The UN Sanctions Committee, which met at India’s request, was to seek a clarification from Pakistan on Lakhvi’s release in the 26/11 trial but China blocked the move on grounds that India did not provide sufficient information. Lakhvi’s release was flashed over the international media and he was rearrested after vehement protests by India, so what proof is China talking about?

·         In May 2015 CCCTV again shows map of India minus J&K and Arunachal Pradesh during visit of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

·         On 25 November 2015, a Conference on ‘China in Pakistan: Growing Human Rights Concerns’ was jointly hosted by the International Human Rights Defenders and Members of the European Parliament in the European Parliament in Strasbourg, attended by more than 120 participants from European Parliament, Civil Society and European Union, which brought out: mass local resentment over Chinese projects negative environmental impact and the utter disregard for environmental safety norms by the Chinese infrastructure developers – literally trashing environment; PLA presence in Pakistan Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan under the pretext of ensuring safety to their workers; PLA creating Shia-Sunni divide causing direct threat to region and locals; need for mechanism to investigate adverse effects of PLA presence in Pakistan and Gilgit Baltistan; Pakistan has given mining license to Chinese companies which has deprived natives of their lands; Baluch people are subject to capital punishments without even going through courts with Pakistan continuing its kill and dump policy in the region – 336 bodies were found in alleged “kill-and-dump” cases during 2015 as per rights activists.

·         In 2015, when Xi announced the $46 billion investment in the CPEC, issue of legal status was never raised by China.

·         In November 2015, before the 26-member strong delegation led by General Fan Changlong, Vice Chairman of China’s Central Military Commission came to India, after visiting Pakistan and signing the agreement for four tier security of the CPEC. 

In all probability the Pathankot terror strike was a calculated joint Chi-Pak orchestrated by the Pakistani military, aimed at sensational damage to the IAF base and response from India. If the dialogue is scuttled (let us say postponed indefinitely), so much the better. Gilgit-Baltistan will promptly be declared Pakistani territory. Nawaz Sharif saying more proof is needed for the Patahnkot terror strike indicates no action will be taken by Pakistan or perhaps some perfunctory action will be taken, even as Nawaz Sharif, Raheel Sharif and Rizwan Akhtar condemn terrorism in unison. The US State Department has already given the leeway to Pakistan for a ‘timeless’ inquiry referring to how long it took to nab Osama-bin-Laden (as if propagators of Pathankot strike are hiding in a third country), while US makes no mention of the $10 million bounty announced on Hafiz Saeed who continues to be treated as royalty in Pakistan. So, more terror attacks may follow. Following Gilgit-Baltistan, rest of POK too can incrementally be declared part of Pakistan while Pakistani military continue to wage proxy war on India at will, to retain pre-eminence in Pakistan. Bruce Riddell already has attributed this capability to Pakistan, which is not surprising given that India has failed to establish credible deterrence against proxy war despite being subjected to terrorism over past three decades. It sure is a deft move by Xi; the question of legality of land over which the CPEC comes up will be buried forever.

The CFL was drawn under the 1949 Karachi Agreement under aegis of the UN Commission and the UN was well aware of the legal accession of entire erstwhile State of J&K to India. The preamble of the UN Resolution mandated that Pakistan withdraw its security forces from POK before a plebiscite is held. Pakistan instead increased her security forces presence and unlike India changed the demography of POK deliberately, killing the issue of plebiscite forever. Results of first ever poll both sides of the Line of Control in J&K conducted by the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House), UK in conjunction King’s College during 2009-2010 (held on behest Musharraf and funded by Gaddafi’s son in Libya) brought out that 98% of people in J&K do not wish to be part of Pakistan and 50% of people in POK do not wish to remain with Pakistan. 

Does the above quote by Ayesha Siddiqa indirectly hint at an understanding to resolve the Kashmir Issue? Farukh Abdullah too went on record last month to say the LoC should be converted to IB. Whatever be the case, India needs to carefully weigh the pros and cons especially with the Gurdaspur and Pathankot attacks having been engineered across the IB. Riaz Mohammad Khan, former foreign secretary of Pakistan in his book ‘Afghanistan and Pakistan: Conflict, Extremism, and Resistance to Modernity’ has examined extremist serving as instruments of its (Pakistan’s) foreign policy. He refers to Pakistan’s foreign policy towards India being based on nurturing some of the most dangerous international terrorist organizations and their local protégés: “groups such as Sipah-e-Sahaba and Jaish-e-Muhammad commonly resorting to threats to browbeat opponents. 

An interesting argument in his book is that the instruments of Pakistan’s foreign policy, the mujahedeen, were not really controlled by the state; in fact, he talks of growing evidence that it was the other way round. There is some sense in what Riaz Mohammed Khan writes about reverse indoctrination albeit presently terrorist leaders like Hafiz Saeed are not controlling but advising the military.

Perhaps that is the reason Musharraf says, “Even if the Kashmir issue is resolved, Jihad against India will continue.” Once Pakistan includes Gilgit-Baltistan in her Constitution, Congress that bent backwards in face of grave incidents on the LoC during UPA II and lay inert when Shaksgam went the Chinese way and more recently PLA moved into POK, will be baying from the rooftops for Prime Minister Modi to act – citing the two resolutions by the Indian Parliament that entire state of erstwhile J&K is part of India. The ball will then be fairly and squarely in Modi’s court, if not already. 

http://www.indiandefencereview.com/news/chi-paks-gb-googly-deft-move-by-xi/

China downplays reports of concerns over CPEC’s G B Stretch

 China downplays reports of concerns over CPEC’s G B Stretch

BEIJING: China on Tuesday downplayed reports about its reservations over the PoK stretch of the USD 46 billion economic corridor it has planned with Pakistan, saying the project would not affect the positions held by the parties to the Kashmir dispute.

"The ownership of the Kashmir region is an issue between India and Pakistan left over from history and should be resolved through dialogues and consultations between the two sides," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hong Lei told a media briefing here.

He made the remarks in reply to a question on reports that China is concerned over the "disputed status" of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) through which the about 3,000 km-long China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) is proposed to pass.

The project plans to connect China's Xinjiang with Pakistan's Gwadar port on the Arabian Sea.

"Relevant cooperation between China and Pakistan in the region aims to promote local economic and social development.

It does not target any third party nor affect the positions held by different parties on the relevant dispute," Hong said.

Recent reports in Pakistan said following China's concerns, Islamabad is weighing options to elevate the constitutional status of northern Gilgit-Baltistan region of the PoK to provide legal cover to the mega corridor plan, marking a historic shift in stand to keep it out of its Constitutional ambit.

Gilgit-Baltistan has never been formally integrated into the Pakistani state and does not participate in Pakistan's Constitutional political affairs.

Hong did not directly respond to the question on China's concerns over the disputed region but Pakistani media reports quoted an official as saying that Beijing was apprehensive about future legal complications.

"China cannot afford to invest billions of dollars on a road that passes through a disputed territory claimed both by India and Pakistan," the official was quoted as saying.

Outwardly, China has been maintaining that this project will not have any impact on the PoK's "disputed status" but the efforts by the Pakistani government to look for options to change the status of Gilgit-Baltistan has come as a surprise to observers here.

India has been protesting the corridor's passing through PoK to China ever since the project was kicked off by President Xi Jinping during his visit to Islamabad last year.

Hong also responded to questions over the brewing discontentment in some of the Pakistani regions and discord among the political parties over the benefits of the project being harnessed by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's Punjab province.

Replying to a question about scepticism prevailing among many Pakistanis over the project, Hong said the corridor is an important consensus reached by leaders of the two countries.

"It will cover the entire state of Pakistan and deliver benefits to the entire population of Pakistan. It will also promote the common prosperity and development of not only China and Pakistan but a also other countries in the region," he said.

Hong also said the project construction will take a long time and will be built in a step by step manner.

"The building of the economic corridor is a systematic work that will take a long time," he said adding that it will constructed in a step by step manner following "scientific planning".

"We would like to make joint efforts with Pakistan to implement the project, make long term plan and push for new progress in the building of the economic corridor," he said.

Reports in the Pakistani media have also quoted Chinese Embassy in Islamabad as saying that, "China hopes that the relevant parties in Pakistan could strengthen communication and coordination on the CPEC to create favourable conditions for the project."

 http://outpost.pk/international/823-breaking-china-downplays-reports-of-concerns-over-cpec-s-g-b-stretch.html

The News was first published in Indian Express on Tuesday 12, 2016.

Sanctity of Agreements in Islam and Kashmir dispute, Dr Shabir Choudhry

Sanctity of Agreements in Islam and Kashmir dispute

Dr Shabir Choudhry    10 January 2016

Individuals, groups, tribes, and nations that don’t honour their agreements lose respect and dignity. They are perceived as untrustworthy and dishonest. Islam strongly commands that all Muslims must honour pledges.

First we look at what Islam says about importance of agreements and pledges, and then analyse the Kashmir dispute in the context of pledges made to the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Almighty Allah commands:

‘Oh people of faith, honour your pledges’. 1

The last Prophet of Allah, Mohammed Peace Be Upon Him said:

‘Do not break your pledges, do not mutilate dead bodies, and do not kill children’. 2

At the time of first war of Islam when the Muslim army was ill equipped and had only 313 men against 1000 of the well - armed men of Quraish who had hundreds of horses against half dozen horses of the Muslim army, Prophet PBUH desperately needed armed men for the war. Huzaifa ibn al Yaman approached the holy Prophet and said he was travelling with his son towards Bader with intention of fighting against the Quraish. They were arrested by Quraish and on enquiry they told them that they were travelling towards Madeena and had no intention to join the war in Bader. On this assurance that they will straight go to Madeena and would not join a war against the Quraish they were released. They, however, travelled to Bader and expressed their desire to join the war against the Quraish.

After hearing this, the holy Prophet said: ‘Both of you proceed to Madeena to fulfil your covenant made with them, and we seek Allah’s help against them’. 3

From the above one can appreciate the importance of honouring pledges. All noble human beings and dignified people must honour covenants; but for the Muslims it is religious obligation, just like any other commands of Quran or Hadees.

When the British Empire ended in India, the State of Jammu and Kashmir emerged as an independent country, which had a clearly defined territory, people and a Ruler with an elected Assembly. Both India and Pakistan recognised this fact. Pakistan acknowledged this fact by making a written agreement with the Ruler of Jammu and Kashmir. This agreement is known as Standstill Agreement; and Pakistan in its written reply to the Maharaja Hari Singh on 15 August 1947 said:

“The Government of Pakistan agrees to have Standstill Agreement with Jammu and Kashmir for the continuation of existing arrangements …”

According to this Agreement Pakistan was to respect territorial integrity of the State of Jammu and Kashmir; and provide all the services to the Jammu and Kashmir State which were provided by Punjab under the British Raj.

The Government of India on the other hand acknowledged a separate status of Jammu and Kashmir State by requesting the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir to negotiate this matter further. Indian government in its reply said:

“Government of India would be glad if you or some other Minister duly
authorised in this behalf could fly to Delhi for negotiating Standstill Agreement between Kashmir Government and India dominion. Early action desirable to maintain intact existing agreements and administrative arrangements.”

Pakistan was established in name of Islam. So one can rightly expect the Pakistani governments to promote Islamic teaching; and among other things uphold laws related to equality, justice and pledges.

However, it is sad to note that Pakistan was the first country to violate a written agreement with a neighbouring country – Jammu and Kashmir. First they imposed an economic blockade to force the Maharaja to accede to Pakistan. When this economic blockade did not yield the desired results, then they, on 22 October 1947, openly attacked Jammu and Kashmir with intention of capturing it.

This unprovoked attack by a Muslim neighbour – Pakistan resulted in death of tens of thousands of innocent Muslims and non Muslims, kidnapping and raping of women and looting at a large scale. Also this unprovoked invasion resulted in the first India and Pakistan war and forced division of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. In view of many experts, the root cause of problems of the people Jammu and Kashmir are directly linked to that unwise tribal invasion.

The Tribal Invasion forced the Ruler of Jammu and Kashmir to seek help from India, which was only provided after the Provisional accession to India. One can acknowledge this fact that the Indian forces were sent to Kashmir on the invitation of the Ruler of Jammu and Kashmir, and after the written agreement; however, it is a bitter fact that India also failed to honour its obligations under the terms of the Provisional Accession.

India’s obligations to the people of Jammu and Kashmir increased after the UN Resolutions on Kashmir. Apart from the written agreements, there were a number of pledges made by Indian Prime Minister, Nehru. He said in the Lok Sabha on August 7, 1952: "...Ultimately - I say this with all deference to this Parliament - the decision will be made in the hearts and minds of the men and women of Kashmir; neither in this Parliament, nor in the United Nations nor by anybody else". 4

It is sad to note that both India and Pakistan, despite written agreements, have badly let down people of Jammu and Kashmir. Both countries pursued policies which were designed to advance their economic and strategic interests. Both violated pledges and written agreements; and ignored the welfare and sentiments of the people.

As a result of their brutal policies people of Jammu and Kashmir continue to suffer on both sides of the divide since 1947. Also because of the unresolved Kashmir dispute, there is a serious threat to peace and stability of the region; and welfare and economic development of the region is held hostage.

Because of the UN Security Council Resolutions there were certain obligations on this august body known as the United Nations; and the world community. However, after Pakistan’s failure to withdraw forces as demanded by the UNCIP Resolution of 13 August 1948, no plebiscite could take place. Later on the Kashmir dispute became part of the ‘Cold war’; and its resolution became more difficult.

It is sad that in the Simla Agreement of 1972, both India and Pakistan decided to resolve the Kashmir dispute bilaterally, with no reference to aspirations of the people. All the talks on the Kashmir dispute are held between the two countries, as if they were the main parties to the dispute and people of Jammu and Kashmir State have no role in it.

It looks we people of Jammu and Kashmir are only there to suffer, and accuse each other for our problems, and by doing so inadvertently help those who occupy us.

References:

1.    Holy Quran, Sura Almahida, section 1

2.    Hadees narrated by Hazrat Buraydah in Muslim Shareef and quoted in Islam and sanctity of Human Life, page 9

3.    Muslim Shareef and quoted in Islam and sanctity of Human Life, page 10 says:

4.    Selected works of Jawaharlal Nehru, vol. 19 pp. 295-6.

Kashmir cause: AJK govt opposes provincial status for Gilgit-Baltistan

Kashmir cause: AJK govt opposes provincial status for Gilgit-Baltistan

By Agencies / MA Mir

MUZAFFARABAD: 

The government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) has decided to lodge a protest against any attempt to convert Gilgit-Baltistan (G-B) into a province of Pakistan.

Treasury members tabled a resolution against the proposed provincial status for G-B in the AJK Legislative Assembly Secretariat on Saturday. The assembly members will debate the resolution in the session scheduled for January 12.

Talking to The Express Tribune, AJK Minister for Rehabilitation Abdul Majid Khan said that making G-B the fifth province of Pakistan will dent the Kashmir cause. “Giving provincial status to G-B will serve the interests of the enemies of Jammu and Kashmir and will therefore be counterproductive,” he said.

AJK Minister for Finance, Planning and Development Chaudhry Latif Akbar endorsed Majid. “G-B is part and parcel of the state of Jammu and Kashmir,” he told a news conference at the AJK Prime Minister’s House. “Any attempt to merge it into Pakistan will deal a fatal blow to our stance in the light of the UN resolutions envisaging the right to self-determination for the Kashmiris,” he said.

Terming Gilgit a constitutional part of Kashmir, Akbar said, “We will not allow division of Kashmir at any cost.” He pointed out that Pakistan had been given administrative control of G-B on a temporary basis, and advised the federal government to “not think beyond that”.

He called upon the government to give the same rights to G-B that AJK and other provinces enjoy. He said the establishment was conspiring against the nation and did not want to see it united.

Majid also urged the federal government to empower the people of G-B.

In recent days, there has been speculation on changing the constitutional status of G-B, which is historically claimed by India. This comes in the wake of Beijing’s concerns about building a section of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor through the disputed area.

Published in The Express Tribune, January 10^th, 2016.

Pakistan mulls elevating status of Gilgit-Baltistan on Chinese insistence

Pakistan mulls elevating status of Gilgit-Baltistan on Chinese insistence

China cannot afford to invest on a road that passes through a disputed territory claimed both by India and Pakistan. —AFP/File

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan is mulling to elevate the constitutional status of northern Gilgit-Baltistan region in a bid to provide legal cover to the multi-billion-dollar Chinese investment plan, officials said on Thursday.

The move could signal a historic shift in the country's position on the future of the wider Kashmir region, observers have said.

The proposal would see the mountainous region mentioned by name for the first time in the country's Constitution, bringing it one step closer to being fully absorbed as an additional province.

Islamabad has historically insisted the parts of Kashmir it controls are semi-autonomous and has not formally integrated them into the country, in line with its position that a referendum should be carried out across the whole of the region.

Sajjad-ul-Haq, spokesman for the chief minister of Gilgit-Baltistan Hafiz Hafeez ur Rehman, told AFP: "A high level committee formed by the prime minister is working on the issue, you will hear good news soon."

Know more: ‘Almost’ Pakistan: Gilgit-Baltistan in a constitutional limbo

Rehman, who arrived in Islamabad on Thursday, was working on the finishing touches to the agreement, a senior official said, adding the document could be unveiled "in a few days".

In addition to being named in the Constitution, Gilgit-Baltistan would also send two lawmakers to sit in the federal parliament — though they would be given observer status only.

A third top government official from Gilgit-Baltistan said the move was in response to concerns raised by Beijing about the China Pakistan Economic Corridor, the $46 billion infrastructure plan set to link China's western city of Kashgar to the Pakistani port of Gwadar on the Arabian Sea.

"China cannot afford to invest billions of dollars on a road that passes through a disputed territory claimed both by India and Pakistan," the official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said.

The corridor plans have been strongly criticised by New Delhi, with India's Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj in June calling the project "unacceptable" for crossing through Indian-claimed territory.

India and Pakistan have fought two full-scale wars over Kashmir, and any changes to the status quo could prove a further setback to hopes for dialogue that were revived after Modi made the historic Lahore visit.

Those efforts were already seen as fragile following a deadly attack on an Indian air base near the Pakistan border Saturday that was followed by a 25-hour siege on an Indian consulate in Afghanistan on Monday.

But according to Pakistani strategic analyst Ayesha Siddiqa, the move could also signal Islamabad's desire to end the Kashmir conflict by formally absorbing the territory it controls — and, by extension, recognising New Delhi's claims to parts of the region it controls, such as the Kashmir valley.

"If we begin to absorb it so can India. It legitimises their absorption of the Valley," she said.

Also read: AJK opposes giving provincial status to GB

History

GB’s modern history can be traced back to the 19th century. In 1846, after many wars and much bloodshed, GB was incorporated in the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir by the Dogras. GB comprised several independent princely states, and all of them now started paying revenue and taxes to the Dogra Raj. The Dogras had an army for the region too, called the Gilgit Scouts.

The Dogra Raj continued for a century, but 1947 spelled upheaval in South Asia and GB was not spared either. With two sovereign states being carved out of united India, GB found itself neither part of India nor part of Pakistan. Even though the Dogras still maintained control over GB after August 1947, their influence was on the wane.

The Dogras were dealt a final blow when a local commander of the Gilgit Scouts, a man named Colonel Mirza Hassan Khan, led a successful rebellion against the Dogra Raj. A government was formed thereafter, for the new Republic of Gilgit, whose president was Shah Raees Khan. Colonel Khan meanwhile became the chief of the Gilgit Scouts.

The new republic could only maintain itself for 16 days. Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the leader of Pakistan, was then approached and requested permission for Gilgit to join the Pakistan federation. This was an unconditional offer, which was duly accepted by Jinnah.

Ever since its accession to Pakistan, Gilgit’s fortunes became intertwined with those of Kashmir.

Editorial: Gilgit-Baltistan alienation

As the matter of Kashmir went to the United Nations in 1948 for resolution, so did the matter of Gilgit.

It was claimed by Pakistani authorities at the time that Gilgit, like Kashmir, was a disputed territory. Since both India and Pakistan were asking for a UN-conducted plebiscite in disputed areas, their calculation was that Gilgit’s people would vote in support of Pakistan and thus, swell the vote in favour of Pakistan. In one move, therefore, Kashmir and Gilgit would officially be part of Pakistan.

The UN advised both India and Pakistan to remove their armies from all disputed territories, so that a UN-supervised referendum could take place. Neither country was prepared to let go of territories under their control, and the matter went into cold storage.

Related: Legislators demand GB as province of Pakistan

In 1988, Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto made changes to the laws governing the Northern Areas. A new body, called the Northern Areas Council, was duly formed. In her second tenure, Benazir introduced the Legal Framework Order (LFO)-1994, which turned the Northern Areas Council into the Northern Areas Legislative Council. The leader of the house of this body was the deputy chief executive, while the minister of Kashmir Affairs and Northern Areas served as chief executive.

The most significant change made by Gen Musharraf was granting the Northern Areas Legislative Assembly the right to amend the LFO but the PPP government that came after the General unveiled a reforms package on September 8, 2009.

The then Prime Minister Gilani did away with the term “Northern Areas” and replaced it with “Gilgit-Baltistan”, a long-standing demand of the people of the area.

Related: GB package termed `compromise on Kashmir`

Under the new law, the chief executive was now the chief minister, while there was also provision for a federally-appointed governor. Advisors in the legislative assembly were now ministers.

The GB Council was now comprised 15 members, six of whom were elected from the GB Legislative Assembly while the rest were elected members from Pakistani assemblies. The prime minister was the council chairman, while the minister of Kashmir Affairs was the deputy chairman. Meetings of this body were to be mostly held in Islamabad.

The GB Council was to serve as the upper house of parliament; legislation pertaining to tourism, minerals, forests, as well as water and power all rested with the Council.

In unveiling the new laws, PM Gilani had used the word “autonomy” for GB, but in truth, GB is still a disputed territory.

http://www.dawn.com/news/1231394/pakistan-mulls-elevating-status-of-gilgit-baltistan-on-chinese-insistence

Why not freeze the Kashmir issue basket, Junaid Qureshi

Why not freeze the Kashmir issue basket, Junaid Qureshi

Governed by Washington and endorsed by Moscow, the recent engagement between Pakistan and India is a much desired development and indeed a welcome step. Contrary to the opinion of some political pundits, I believe that the recent highlight of this engagement - the visit of Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Lahore – was neither sudden nor spontaneous. At best, one could classify it as a very well-guarded diplomatic secret, which in itself is quite a feat in the otherwise tale-bearing media of the Sub-continent.

By nature, I am certainly not a pessimistic person, however I would advocate for some caution when trying to comprehend Indo-Pak relations and deciphering the equilibrium of power and authority, in particularly in Pakistan.

It is evident that the Pakistani Army, the actual epicentre of power in Pakistan, is currently on board. No plane of an Indian Prime Minister could even breathe Pakistani airspace, let alone touch the tarmac of any Pakistani airport, until and unless the Pakistani Army would have given a nod of approval. The current nod is explainable, as it is a consequence of the recent visit of the Chief of Army Staff, General Raheel Sharif, to the United States.

The bigger question is however, how long the Pakistani Army will keep approving of this harmonious engagement which many in the Army undoubtedly view as a conflict to their company’s business interests? The subsequent question is, how long will it be able to contain the several Frankenstein’s monsters it has created like the Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Hizbul Mujahideen and the United Jihad Council?

All, which exist to keep the Kashmir-issue burning and function as the front-line of the Army. Another question is, how will the Army control the so-called rogue elements in their ranks and the club of powerful retired personnel, which believe in patronizing these parties? Indeed, how long will Rawalpindi and Islamabad remain on the same page?

The pro-peace forces in Pakistan, in cooperation with India, need to muster the courage and formulate policies which take away these concerns. Simultaneously, the violent forces and those who have an inclination of supporting violence, especially in Kashmir, must ask themselves the question, what almost three decades of violence have achieved? Will the current lot of a few guns really achieve what the last three decades couldn’t or will it only push another generation to the brink of annihilation?

There is also the question of the separatists in Kashmir. When India and Pakistan do not talk, great hue and cry is raised by each and every separatist that both countries should engage in dialogue and create an atmosphere of peace. Yet, barring just one or two separatists, every other separatist has been unsupportive of the recent re-engagement between India and Pakistan.

The visible nervousness among these shopkeepers unveils that this recent re-engagement has compelled them to worry mainly about their monthly remuneration among other interests. These worries are genuine and need to be pacified while embarking upon the difficult path of peace. Perhaps their masters could summon creativity by only changing their job description. Maybe these proxies of war could be transformed into proxies of peace and still enjoy their remuneration. Albeit, for a much more humane cause.

The demeanour of Syed Ali Geelani Sahib in particular has bewildered me completely. Geelani Sahib has been propagating J&K’s accession to Pakistan in Srinagar for a few decades now. Logically speaking, this makes him nothing more than the local representative of Pakistan in Kashmir, defending the interests of Pakistan. When Pakistan directly talks to India, why should he then oppose this exercise and wish for a role for himself? When the main party, whose interests he is representing, starts talking directly to the other concerned party, Geelani Sahib should have no problems at all. In essence, it is his boss who has decided to take over the reins. Geelani Sahib’s attitude towards the recent developments is the quintessential exhibition of hypocrisy. Most probably, worries regarding his own remuneration must have had an uncontrollable and exacerbating effect.

Having said all this, it seems that in the backdrop of geo-political developments, growing threat of global religious extremism and increasing economic interdependency, both countries have decided to re-engage while following the previously agreed approach of ‘bucketing’ their issues into different baskets. It is also reasonably clear that there is a consensus, at least for the moment, that the basket labelled as ‘The Kashmir-issue’ is the last basket which will be touched at the last. This indeed, is the most realistic and feasible strategy given the current circumstances.

However, I do think that in order to mitigate above mentioned concerns, this strategy needs to be institutionalized and we Kashmiris need to be brought on board. Both countries, instead of wishing away the Kashmir-issue by merely deprioritizing it, need to take us Kashmiris into confidence and make us understand that putting ‘our’ basket as the last one to be touched, is actually in our interest. 

We Kashmiris need to be told that the probability of ‘our’ basket getting resolved is greater when it is preceded by solutions to the other less contentious issues in the other baskets.

Absence of transparency in this regard will only harvest mistrust among Kashmiris which will eventually prove counterproductive. History bears witness to the fact that there are many elements which would readily exploit this mistrust and thereby try to jeopardize this breeze of peace.   

One way to institutionalize this strategy and bring us Kashmiris on board is adapting the freezing to de-freeze formula. This would translate into formally freezing the Kashmir-issue for the next – let’s say – twenty years in order to de-freeze it. During these twenty years, India and Pakistan should solve all other outstanding issues which will ensure economic and political interdependency among both the countries, demolish the erected walls of hatred and eventually assuage the complexities of the Kashmir-Issue.

India and Pakistan should start following the broad lines of some formulae which they largely agreed upon in the past and call by different names, depending on whom you ask; ‘The Musharraf formula’, ‘The Musharraf-Manmohan formula’ or ‘The Vajpayee formula’.

Whichever name one might give it, both countries should, while freezing the Kashmir-issue, demonstrate the utmost flexibility by giving something back to us Kashmiris. This will pave the way of satisfying our genuine demands, create a tangible sense of hope and at the same time address our intangible yet undeniable yearning of regaining our lost dignity. 

Both countries should initiate the total withdrawal of their armies from J&K. A zero tolerance policy on terrorism should be adhered to by all partners. Elements in Kashmir assisted by rogue elements in the Pakistani military establishment, supporting terrorism and extremism should be aborted.

The de facto border, LOC, should be made irrelevant and free movement of goods, persons, services and capital should be guaranteed. Pakistan should ensure that no further attempts will be made to disassemble Gilgit Baltistan from Pakistan Administered Kashmir (Azad Kashmir).

A sustainable economy consisting of models for industrial, agricultural and touristic developments should be encouraged and invested upon by both countries.

Full autonomy should be given to the Kashmiri people on both sides by constituting regional assemblies in all the five regions and only the portfolios of Defense, Foreign affairs and Currency should be managed by India and Pakistan respectively in their current administered parts of J&K.

We Kashmiris on our part, need to institutionalize an Intra-Kashmir dialogue in all the regions of J&K, which includes Gilgit Baltistan, Pakistan Administered Kashmir, Ladakh, Jammu and the Kashmir Valley and among all the State Subjects of J&K including all those minorities who were forced to leave their soil because of violence during the last 25 years by constituting a mechanism for the return of refugees and their right to the dispensation of justice.

While considering the realities of the geo-political situation in the region and especially the global situation which will develop in this freezing period, the national interests of India and Pakistan and our own interests, we Kashmiris need to build a rationally sound consensus regarding the wishes, which our collective representatives will put forward at the end of this twenty year freezing period.

I firmly believe that an everlasting solution to the Kashmir-issue will naturally follow this freezing period. When both countries will have solved all other outstanding issues and Kashmiris would have liberated themselves from violence, religious extremism and proxy warfare, none of the parties would be willing, not to solve this imbroglio.

The interrelated stakes, collective appetite for peace and economic progress and the respective introspection among all stakeholders would necessitate a solution based on the principles of give-and-take. The interdependency will inevitably make giving less painful, while it will diminish the urge of taking. 

Every sane Kashmiri should welcome and encourage any kind of political engagement between Pakistan and India. As long as there is engagement, there is at least less or no violence, which ensures that Kashmir and Kashmiris suffer less.

Whoever opposes such developments, is the actual enemy of Kashmiris and a beneficiary of this conflict. The sooner we Kashmiris understand this, the better for us.

The path to peace is long, but it is a path worth walking.

Yes, even crawling.   

Kashmir Images, 01 January 2016

The author can be reached at junaidqureshi8@yahoo.com.

http://dailykashmirimages.com/Details/99748/why-not-freeze