Civil Military relations in Pakistan are no clearer, Saneela Jawad

Civil Military relations in Pakistan are no clearer, Saneela Jawad

“Security and foreign policy is not in the civilian leaders’ control. The very fact that the army, which in other countries is part of the government, is spoken of in Pakistan as a separate and superior institution to the government in Pakistan tells us everything,” said Haqqani.

Pakistan’s security and military policy are covered in ambiguity. The civil-military relationship has been a roller coaster ride for many years and instead of changing the policies of the country the government is not doing anything about improving its relations with its neighbouring countries that have been falling apart due to this lack of clarity.

Not only that, it has drawn criticism from allies like Afghanistan and the United States increasing the rift between the civil and military leadership threatening the long-term diplomatic strain.

Pakistan’s increasing isolation from its neighbouring countries has also shown the need for clearer policies.

Its variation between ‘good and bad Taliban’ and accusations that Pakistan supports the Haqqani Network is a direct threat to peace and stability in the region.  Two years into Zarb-e-Azb, the state policy with regard to the Haqqani Network is still not clear.

Former Pakistani ambassador to the United States Husain Haqqani while talking to DNA said that Pakistan’s security establishment has always had a certain ambiguity in its policies. Not only that, it presents its policy different to the domestic audience than it does to the rest of the world.

“Pakistan would like its people to believe that the sole threat to them comes from India and that the Pakistani military is capable of handling this threat along with its allies (in earlier years the US, now the Chinese and maybe even the Russians),” he said in an email interview.

The deteriorating ties with the US further decreased Pakistan’s importance as an ally to Washington after the US Congress debated on whether Islamabad is a friend or foe and thus, decided to decrease its economic and military aid given to Pakistan to fight ‘terrorism’.

Public opinion about Pakistan has also had an impact on policy. According to a Pew poll, only 10 percent of Americans trust Pakistan and only 22 percent of Pakistanis have a favourable view of the United States.

Similarly, Pakistan, now, is facing one of the biggest challenges ever. Ever since the purported ‘surgical strikes’ on terror camps in Azad Jammu and Kashmir launched by Indian troops, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been threatening to destroy Pakistan. Not only that, New Delhi has intimidated Islamabad with a water war.

Because of Indian lobbying, two US Congressmen have proposed a bill to have Pakistan declared a ‘terrorist state’.

“Pakistan is a nuclear state, so the US will make sure not to put it under sanctions as its necessary for the US to stay connected with Pakistan to work on nuclear non-proliferation,” said academic Qamar Cheema while talking to DNA.

“Hard sanctions are not imminent and this is not the first time that the United States is talking about declaring Pakistan a state sponsor of terrorism,” said Haqqani.

Similarly columnist and a senior politician Ayaz Amir while talking to DNA stated that sanctions are too extreme of an option.

Additionally, the tensions between Pakistan and Afghanistan had earlier caused clashes among the armed forces from both sides suggesting that the relationship between the two regions is filled with disagreements.

The lack of clearer approach in policy matters as such raises questions about the government’s competence. Why hasn’t the government been able to reach a consensus on a strategy regarding counterterrorism?

“Pakistan has continuously been blamed for the US failure to pacify the situation with Afghanistan. Due to the lack of state policies Pakistan has always been put in the spotlight,” says Amir.

Kabul has repeatedly blamed Islamabad for all its woes and snubbing it in every international forum. Not only that, the Afghan government increased the transit tax on Pakistani goods by 100 per cent, which caused the transporters to go on a strike, which has created a crisis situation across borders.

Furthermore, the fact that Pakistan’s power structure is dominated by military suggests how there is little room for the civilian leadership to alter the state policy.

“You cannot blame the army for expanding their area, but in order for civilians to dominate an area of their own they need to get their priorities right,” said Ayaz.

Pakistan must develop a strategic and effective diplomacy to deal with the issues. The internal rift between the government and the civilian authority is the reason for the isolation of the country as it gives freedom to the non-state actors against whom action must be taken.  In addition to that, Haqqani said, “Pakistan’s neighbours and the international community want to know why Pakistan is willing to target only some terrorist groups –the ones that wreak havoc inside Pakistan –but not others, especially those that attack in Afghanistan and India.”

Despite its success, Operation Zarb e Azb has targeted some terrorists, but only those that attack the Pakistani state.

“The Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani, that target Afghans and Americans, and the Lashkar e Taiba and Jaish e Mohammad, that target Indians, have faced no action,” Haqqani added.

This suggests that Pakistan needs to take action against all terrorist groups to end the perception about ambiguity in its views on terrorism.

Furthermore, Civilian leadership cannot afford to make essential improvements in defining what truly is best for the nation or not.

“Security and foreign policy is not in the civilian leaders’ control. The very fact that the army, which in other countries is part of the government, is spoken of in Pakistan as a separate and superior institution to the government in Pakistan tells us everything,” said Haqqani.

Lastly, the need for leadership in Pakistan to set their priorities right is very important. Not only that, the need for a realist foreign policy should not be overlooked. The idea of a civilian control should only be considered if the leadership understands what needs to be focused on.

We have to battle for our security, however, we ought not to make India the end all and be the greater part of our presence.

http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2016/10/16/features/shrouded-in-mystery/

Maharaja Hari Singh, last Ruler of an independent Jammu and Kashmir, Dr Shabir Choudhry

Maharaja Hari Singh, last Ruler of an independent Jammu and Kashmir

Dr Shabir Choudhry       10 October 2016

I am grateful to ‘Voice of Dogras’ for inviting me to speak on the occasion of birthday of Maharaja Hari Singh, the last Ruler of an independent Jammu and Kashmir State. This function is to be held in the British Parliament on 10 October 2016.

Due to family commitments, I am unable to personally take part in this important function; however, I promised Madam Manu Khajuria, Chair of ‘Voice of Dogras’ that I will send my message in writing.

Chair, Friends and colleagues

All those who have made some contribution to history are controversial people; and Maharaja Hari Singh is no exception to this. The fact that he is a controversial figure is tantamount to acknowledging that he has made some contribution to the history of Jammu and Kashmir and the region; and which is still considered to be significant.

Critics of Maharaja Hari Singh

Maharaja Hari Singh’s critics could be characterised as follows:

1/ People of the Valley of Kashmir erroneously think they are the chosen people; and people belonging to other regions of the State of Jammu and Kashmir are inferior to them. Since Maharaja Hari Singh belonged to Jammu, they never accepted him as an equal, or even a ‘Kashmiri’, hence the Quit Kashmir Movement against the Maharaja, at a crucial time when important decisions were being made in whole of the Indian Sub Continent.

At this important juncture of history, people and the ruling elite of Jammu and Kashmir must have been on the same page to safeguard interests of the Jammu and Kashmir State; alas some political aspirants had other ideas which were detrimental to the interests of the State.

2/ Muslims of the State, in Particular Muslims of the Valley of Kashmir regarded him as a ‘biased’ Hindu Dogra; and examined his Rule from religious perspective. Most literature against the Dogra rule or Hari Singh was produced by the Muslims of the Valley which had religious and regional bias.

This literature, to a large extent, had inbuilt bias against Hari Singh and his administration; and many people of Pakistan, Pakistani occupied Kashmir, Gilgit Baltistan and the Kashmir Valley were and still are influenced by that literature.

3/ Other critics of Hari Singh view his administration in the light of the Western democracies of 21^st century. Little they know what were the political, economic and social conditions of the people in the British India, and especially in the Princely India. All these approaches to evaluate his rule and his legacy are wrong, as they will reach wrong conclusions.

Was he a communal Ruler?

We have to analyse his rule and achievements under the prevailing political, economic and social conditions of that time. Moreover, we should examine his administration as a Ruler of a multi religious and multi ethnic State; and not as a follower of a particular religion.

He may not appear a democrat, especially if we see his rule in the light of democracy we see in Britain or in the Western Europe; but he was far ahead of other Princely Rulers of India. He was the first Ruler to grant Assembly to the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

Among the biggest criticism against the Maharaja Hari Singh are events which culminated in to the tragic event of 13 July 1931, in which more than 21 innocent citizens got killed and injured. And because of these events people label him as ‘anti Muslim’. His officials could have been too harsh with Muslims, and there were heavy taxes imposed on Muslims, which generated resentment and hatred against his rule, especially in 1947 when religious sentiments were running very high.

But is it not true that officials even in 21^st Century democracies, at times, treat people harshly and exhibit anti certain community actions? Are we not complaining about taxes and high prices on various items used in everyday life in 21^st century? In other words people always complain about inequality and unfair treatment in every society. This is not to suggest that officials of the Maharaja were pious people and they were not biased or oppressive. Muslim subjects strongly felt that they were treated unfairly and that they were burdened with heavy taxes which resulted in resentment and anti Dogra sentiments.

Anyhow, before we comment on the events in which Muslim sentiments were very seriously injured, thinking people need to see why these four incidents happened at that particular time. No one can trace any such incidents before 1930/31 or after this.

Then question arises why these events happened at that time. Why sentiments of Muslims were hurt. Can people remember there was a Round Table Conference in London in 1930? This is where the British asked the Maharaja to lease areas of Gilgit to the British that they could check the Soviet Russia’s activities from there.

As a loyal son of the soil, the Maharaja refused. The British made it apparent that they did not like this rather rebellious attitude of the Maharaja Hari Singh; and that there would be a political price for this.

At that time Prime Minister of Jammu and Kashmir was a British gentleman called Mr Wakefield. His services could be utilized to teach Hari Singh a lesson, hence four communal incidents in which Muslim sentiments were very profoundly hurt. Colonel Tej K Tikoo, commented in the following words:

‘Clipping the Maharaja’s wings would serve their immediate purpose. Besides, it would serve its other strategic purpose; coerce him to submit to the British demand for lease of Gilgit, the all important strategic outpost in the Great Game.’ The Prime Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, Wakefield, ‘was ideally placed to implement the conspiracy on the ground’. 1 It looks he completed his task effectively.

These communal events, bad and undesirable as they were, were orchestrated systematically to inflame religious passions of Muslims in Jammu and Kashmir and in the British India. They held the Maharaja Hari Singh responsible for these communal events, and were determined to overthrow him. In this struggle, Muslims of Punjab were supporting them.

It is true, the Muslims were politically suppressed and economically strangled, but was that not the case in the rest of India too; and there were other reasons why they were behind, one reason was their refusal to learn English and lack of cooperation with the British who were, at that time, masters of India.

Abdul Qadeer was an employee of an English army officer, who was on holiday in Kashmir, staying in a house boat in the Nasim Bagh. When the Muslims were killed as a result of firing, and their passions were running very high. When the crowd was emotionally charged, out of nowhere, Abdul Qadeer Khan appeared on the scene and delivered a powerful speech to inflame passions of the Kashmiri Muslims. He said:

‘Muslim brethren! The time has now come when we should meet force by greater force to put an end to the tyrannies and brutalities to which you are subjected; nor will they solve the issues of disrespect to Holy Quran to your satisfaction. You must rely upon your own strength and wage a relentless war against oppression’. Pointing his finger towards the palace, he thundered: ‘Raze it to the ground’. 2     

Abdul Qadeer Khan was arrested and imprisoned, but not many people know that under the pressure of the British he was released secretly. Important point was he came, played his role brilliantly, created the chaos which the British wanted; and disappeared.

Glancy Commission

After the tragic killings of 13 July, The All India Kashmir Committee was established to support Muslims of Jammu and Kashmir and lobby the British on their behalf. They conducted a successful campaign to exert pressure on the British to intervene to stop the killing of innocent people. Due to internal and external pressure the Maharaja appointed a Commission, which was known as the Glancy Commission.

The Commission had the task of looking into the grievances of the community groups in the State, particularly the Muslims, who had serious complaints against the Government. The Maharaja also promised that once the Commission had completed its task, he would hold a conference under the chairmanship of Mr. Glancy, to consider constitutional reforms.

The Commission completed its task and presented the report on 22^nd March 1932, and made 12 recommendations, of which these are the important ones:

1. That certain Muslim religious shrines should be restored to Muslims;

2. Complete religious liberty should be enjoyed by every class and community;

3. A special inspector of Mohammedan education should be appointed and the number of Muslim teachers increased;

4. All communities should receive a fair share of Government appointments;

5. All vacancies should be properly advertised;

6. There should be decentralised power so that ministers could function properly;

7. Certain taxes should be abolished and industrial development should receive the urgent attention of the Government.

Conclusion

In my opinion Hari Singh was a true nationalist. His vision and care for his subjects could be seen from the fact that in order to protect interests of his subjects he introduced State Subject Laws in 1927, that no non Kashmiri can buy any land in Jammu and Kashmir.

It is sad to note that whereas, India, by and large, has respected State Subject Laws, Pakistan has openly contravened these laws, especially in Gilgit Baltistan where tens of thousands of Pakistanis have settled; and a large areas of the region are leased to rich Pakistanis who are plundering our natural resources.

He exhibited statesmanship by dealing and having very tough negotiations with great and clever leaders of that time, for example, people like Mohammed Ali Jinnah, Pandit Nehru, Mahtama Gandhi, Mountbatten, and Sheikh Abdullah etc. He must have had strong nerves to put up with the pressure of Muslim League, Indian National Congress, Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Conference, Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, and Mountbatten who were forcing him to either accede to Pakistan or India. He did not surrender to this pressure; and as a loyal and brave son of the soil, he protected the interests of Jammu and Kashmir State; and opted to remain independent.

He wanted to preserve his independence which he gained after lapse of the British Paramountcy on 15 August 1947. As the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir, he concluded a Standstill Agreement with the government of Pakistan. He also offered India a Standstill Agreement. India did not refuse to sign the Standstill Agreement; but wanted to discuss this matter further.

It must be remembered that he was the first Princely Ruler to establish the Constituent Assembly. He was gradually giving away his powers to the people and the Assembly when, Pakistan, in violation of the Standstill Agreement, attacked State of Jammu and Kashmir on 22 October 1947. If there was no tribal invasion, it was more than likely that Jammu and Kashmir would have been an independent country with a constitutional monarchy.

When he was forced by the Tribal attack to seek help from India, in his letter to Mountbatten, Governor General of an independent India he wrote: ‘so that it has become difficult to stop the wanton destruction of life and property and the looting of the Mahura power house,...The number of women who have been kidnapped and raped makes my heart bleed.... I have no option but to ask for help from the Indian Dominion... . I have accordingly decided to do so, and I attach the instrument of accession for acceptance by your Government. The other alternative is to leave my state and people to free booters. On this basis no civilised government can exist or be maintained. This alternative I will never allow to happen so long as I am the ruler of the State and I have life to defend my country...’ 3

If one impartially read these sentences, one can see his pain on the destruction and loss of life of his Subjects. No matter what was attitude of some of his officials, this letter shows he cared for his people, whether they were Muslims or non Muslims.

In my opinion, the biggest tribute to his rule is that even his Muslim critics also demand protection under the State Subject Laws, be they are in Srinagar, Jammu, and Muzaffarabad or in Gilgit. Furthermore, majority of the people seeking unification and independence of Jammu and Kashmir demand all the areas of the State of which he was the last Ruler.

References:

1/ Kashmir: Its Aborigines and Their Exodus p 133

By Colonel Tej K Tikoo

2/ Justice Yusuf Saraf, Kashmiris Fight For Freedom, Vol. 1, p.374.

3/ Maharaja Hari Singh’s letter to Mountbatten written on 26 October 1947

Dr Shabir Choudhry

Chairman Institute of Kashmir Affairs

Writer, TV anchor and author of dozens of books on Jammu and Kashmir and India Pakistan relations.

Tel: 07790 942471

Email: drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com

Contesting Kashmir, by Dr Niaz Murtaza.

Contesting Kashmir, by Dr Niaz Murtaza.

GIVEN the ulterior agendas of global powers like the US, the UN record of resolving the status of contested domains is poor. Eritrea, Kashmir, Palestine, East Timor and Western Sahara’s fates languished at the UN for decades. Eritrea and East Timor gained freedom, not primarily due to the UN or even their freedom forces, but because their occupiers — Ethiopia and Indonesia — collapsed temporarily.

The cases of Kashmir, Palestine and Wes­tern Sahara, occupied by strong, US-allied states, remain unresolved. Other freedom drives with mixed popular support in strong states — eg in Turkey, India and Pakistan — have not even made it to the UN agenda.

But some states got freedom without ever being on the UN agenda. Nearly a dozen did so easily, but only because the ex-USSR collapsed. Bangladesh became free with the helping hand of a powerful neighbour; Kosovo only after relentless US bombing of Serbia. Showing maturity which often eludes even democracies, Sudan’s autocratic regime let South Sudan go, despite little new external pressure.

---

History has lessons for India and Pakistan.

This history has lessons for India and Pakistan. Those for Pakistan are immediate. No strong state has ceded land recently to its arch enemy through bilateral or multilateral talks or overt or covert war. Afghanistan’s freedom came not from the fabled bravery of the ‘mujahideen’ but USSR’s lack of emotional investment there and the creeping collapse of communism. India is a rising, not decaying, power and is emotionally invested strongly in Kashmir. Thus, the chances of India ceding Kashmir due to bilateral or multilateral talks or covert or overt war are near zero.

Yet talks are the best bet even if they do not ensure success. They allow Pakistan to escape global rebuke for and the domestic blowback from hosting militants. Decades of space for anti-India and Afghan militants has not given India-held Kashmir freedom or Pakistan strategic depth in Afghanistan against India. It has boosted India’s global portrayal of Kashmir as a terrorism case. In a self-fulfilling prophecy, it has ironically given India strategic depth against Pakistan in Afghanistan. For this, our physical and ideological defenders must be held accountable. But their accountability in Pakistan is even less than that of corrupt politicians.

We may chafe at the silence of Western democracies at Indian atrocities in Kashmir. But it may help reduce the hurt if we remember that Western powers also remained largely silent when we committed atrocities in Dhaka since we were a US ally then, as India is today. In fact, they also remain largely silent even today at atrocities in Balochistan.

But of course tens of thousands of people do not periodically take to the streets shouting “azadi, azadi” in Quetta as they do in Srinagar, making silence on Kashmir more odious. Terrorism involves killing civilians. So which is terrorism and more condemnable: the killing of 18 soldiers in Uri or the killing of 80-plus civilians elsewhere in India-held Kashmir?

The lessons for India are less immediate, yet crucial. Yes, there is little chance of it losing Kashmir soon. Yet, its Kashmir position is largely based on might-is-right rather than ethics, logic or legality. No major power accepts its position of endlessly referring to Kashmir as its integral part, not even its close regional allies Afghanistan and Bangladesh. The world still considers it disputed territory despite India’s growing global clout, reflecting the absence of even an inch of progress despite decades of Indian efforts. That principles are closer to Pakistan’s basic position on Kashmir (but not its current strategies) is refreshing for a state whose policies are so often unprincipled.

The lack of alternative views on Kashmir in more democratic India is odd. Pakistani liberals critique their country’s security policies far more openly despite greater risks here. Forget hawks, even Indian liberals argue cockily that Pakistan cannot liberate Kashmir, implicitly accepting the lack of principles in India’s position. The knee-jerk response to this jingoism is that neither can India liberate Azad Kashmir or the part controlled by China.

A more sensible response is that even if the world does not run mainly on principles, they are not entirely absent from the global political calculus. As India becomes a bigger power and more aligned with Western democracies, such an absence of principles will bite. The process can be hastened if Pakistan reins in militants, for the global focus will then be on Indian atrocities. Ironically, Pakistan itself is delaying this outcome.

But ultimately India will realise that territories do not become one’s integral part by repeated unilateral declarations but by local and global acceptance. To gain global legitimacy for its Kashmir claims, it will eventually have to talk with Pakistan and the Kashmiris. Not the aggression of the hawk but the patience of its cousin eagle, as shown so well by China on Taiwan, will serve Pakistan more in contesting Kashmir.

The writer heads INSPIRING Pakistan, a progressive policy unit.

murtazaniaz@yahoo.com

www.inspiring.pk.

Published in Dawn October 11th, 2016

http://www.dawn.com/news/1289284/contesting-kashmir

Memorandum Peoples Reconciliation Committee for Gilgit Baltistan and Jammu Kashmir, Muhammad Sajjad Raja

Memorandum Peoples Reconciliation Committee for Gilgit Baltistan and Jammu Kashmir, Muhammad Sajjad Raja

Peoples Reconciliation Committee for Gilgit Baltistan & Jammu Kashmir organised a protest outside Pakistani High Commission in London. 

A memorandum was presented to the High Commission of Pakistan.

Memorandum

To
The Prime Minister of Pakistan

Government of Pakistan

Islamabad, Pakistan

Political and Constitutional Rights of the People of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan

Sir,

We, the people of divided and disputed State of Jammu and Kashmir, place before you certain issues related to the basic human, political and constitutional rights of the people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir for your consideration and immediate action.

The State of Jammu and Kashmir is a disputed territory and under the UN resolutions future of the State is yet to be decided, and you are aware that areas of the State of Jammu and Kashmir under Pakistani control, i.e. Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan, are not constitutional part of Pakistan and under the UN resolutions Pakistan is only authorised to empower and facilitate the people of Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan to form their own governments to run the affairs of the areas till the final settlement of the issue.

But it is very painful to note that people of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan have been living under miserable socio economic conditions and without any constitutional and political rights since 1947. Basic human, political and constitutional rights of the people under Pakistani control have continuously been violated and compromised and no serious efforts have been made to empower the people.

On the one hand both the governments of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan are directly governed by the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs lacking any decision making powers and on the other hand draconian laws like National Action Plan, Anti Terrorism Act and Schedule 4 etc. are being ruthlessly used to curb the fundamental human, political and democratic rights of the people and any voices of dissent are suppressed by the use of illegal and unauthorised state power of Pakistan.

We feel that successive Pakistani governments have not been sincere with the people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and have always misused them to create troubles for India rather than supporting them to attain independence or collect any rights for themselves.

Since 1989 direct interference of Pakistani agencies into Kashmir Valley has resulted in the loss of thousands of lives and a whole generation has lost the peace, prosperity and stability. Pakistani agencies have been supporting, promoting and sponsoring the militant organisations in the Valley and certain Jihadist organisations from Pakistan have been authorised to operate in Kashmir and this policy has hampered any peaceful solution of the problem and due to the very conservative theocratic approach of these Jihadist organisations the secular fabric of the State of Jammu and Kashmir has been torn apart and the State has practically been divided on the religious grounds. 

We demand that Pakistani policy on Jammu and Kashmir be changed with immediate effect and ways to settle the issue through peaceful dialogue must be explored rather than promoting any violent and armed movement as such a policy has damaged Pakistani position among the nations of the world and people of Pakistan face isolation and segregation on Kashmir issue.

We the people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, who have been suffering due to ill-designed policies of Pakistani governments, request your personal intervention and necessary and immediate action to ensure that all fundamental human, political and constitutional rights of the people of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan are restored and protected, all hostilities against the people of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan are seceded and violence in Kashmir Valley is stopped. 

We demand that the following measures be taken immediately to ensure that the basic human, political and constitutional rights of the people of divided and disputed State of Jammu and Kashmir are protected and peace, normalcy and stability is returned to all parts of the State of Jammu and Kashmir:

Our Demands:

1/Support of Pakistani government to all militant and Jihadist outfits operating in Kashmir Valley and Azad Kashmir be withdrawn;

2/All terrorist training camps be closed in Azad Jammu and Kashmir;
3. Cross border terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir be stopped with immediate effect;
4. Firing across Ceasefire Line in Azad Jammu and Kashmir be stopped;
5. Compensation be paid to all those injured and to the families of those who have been killed due to the armed activities at Ceasefire Line; 

6. A meaningful and productive dialogue be initiated with India involving the political leadership of all factions of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to broker peace and stability in Kashmir;

7. All political and military interference into the affairs of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan be stopped and both the governments of AJK and GB be empowered;
8. Act 74 in Azad Jammu and Kashmir be abolished

9. All lent officers be called back from AJK

10. Ministry of Kashmir Affairs be abolished and to replace it elected higher chambers of the parliament be constituted in both Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan;

11. All refugees seats of the legislative assembly of Azad Jammu and Kashmir reserved for the people living in Pakistan be abolished;

12. Electricity load shedding in Azad Jammu and Kashmir be stopped;

13. An international airport be built in Azad Jammu and Kashmir to facilitate the people of Azad Kashmir living abroad;

14. Billions of Dollars foreign aid received after 2008 earthquake be handed in to the government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir;

15. Jammu Kashmir Central Bank be built in Azad Jammu and Kashmir and all foreign remittances sent to Azad Kashmir by the people of Azad Jammu and Kashmir be exclusively deposited in that bank; 

16. Royalty of all dams and power generation projects in Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan be given to the respective governments in Muzaffarabad and Gilgit;

17. Kashmir property in Pakistan be handed over to the government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir;

 
18. Illegal and unconstitutional laws like National Action Plan, Anti Terrorism Act and Schedule 4 which are being used to suppress the Nationalists in Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan be withdrawn;

19. Killers of Arif Shahid Shaheed be arrested and their trial be opened in the court of law;

20. Cases registered against Danish Liaqat, Adeem Altaf, Muneeb Baqir and others in Trarkhal Azad Jammu and Kashmir under National Action Plan be withdrawn;

21. Construction of CPEC should be linked to the consensus of all concerned parties;

22. Royalty of CPEC projects be handed over to the government of Gilgit Baltistan;
23. CPEC be constructed in Azad Jammu and Kashmir through Neelum to Bhimber;

24. 51% projects and financial benefits of CPEC be reserved for Gilgit Baltistan;
25. 51% employment quota be reserved for the people of Gilgit Baltistan in CPEC projects;
26. Compensation be paid to Gilgit Baltistan for the anticipated environmental damage of CPEC;

27. CPEC control and management be handed over to the respective local governments; 
28. Baba Jan, Iftikhar Hussain, Tahir Ali and all their colleagues who have been put behind bars only because of their political activities be released unconditionally and all cases against them be withdrawn;

29. State Subject Rules be restored in Gilgit Baltistan without any delay.

Muhammad Sajjad Raja

Spokesman
Peoples Reconciliation Committee for Gilgit Baltistan and Jammu Kashmir.

9th of October 2016, London.

Am I a citizen of Jammu and Kashmir? Dr Shabir Choudhry

Am I a citizen of Jammu and Kashmir? Dr Shabir Choudhry

Issue of my ID card is in Islamabad High Court. After a long and hard struggle, my attorney has managed to get a hearing date which is tomorrow, Monday 10 October 2016.

Our plea is that Pakistan has no right to deprive me of my ID Card, which is fundamental to life in Pakistan and in Pakistani Administered Kashmir. In fact, it evidence of one’s existence, and without the ID card many basic rights are denied; and one is vulnerable to intimidation of secret agencies.

I heard the view they are taking is that Dr Shabir Choudhry is not a Kashmiri citizen; or his papers are not authentic.

This means I have to prove that I am a citizen of Jammu and Kashmir; and that no papers were fake (My original ID card was made in 1975). In practise, it means the authorities want to drag on the process.

About six months ago, a message was given by a man who is close to them that I should apologise (for what I am doing to expose their Kashmir policy); Stop TV programmes, promise to be a ‘good boy’ in future, and no more political work challenging their policies. After that everything will be OK.

I refused to do this by saying I have not done anything wrong, so no apology is due.

A blunt message was, ‘We will see you’.

I replied, ‘make sure you put your spectacles on’; and the fight continues.

HRCP slams faith-based violence in Balochistan

HRCP slams faith-based violence in Balochistan

Lahore, October 07: The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) has called upon the authorities and the political and religious parties to take effective steps to stop the faith-based violence and bloodletting in Balochistan.

In a statement issued on Friday, the Commission said: “HRCP has serious concerns over the recent attack in Quetta where four women from the Hazara community were killed in an attack on their bus, and violence in Panjgur where several worship places of the Zikri community were torched.

“Such attacks are just the latest evidence of the authorities’ failure to arrest the mindless bloodletting by extremist elements.

“Official condemnation of such violence is of little consequence without meaningful action against those who have tried to divide people in the name of religion and sect. They have also tarnished the tolerant tradition of Balochistan, where humanity transcended religious or sectarian identity.

“The extremist violence in Balochistan, especially against the Hazara Shia in recent years, has dispelled any illusions about the perpetrators’ moral compass. But the attack on the bus carrying Hazara women proves that no depth is too low for the killers and those who control them.

“The outrage of the affected families, and the citizenry is understandable. We hope that, if nothing else, the helplessness and frustration of the people shames the authorities into bringing the bloodletting and insanity in the province to a halt.

“HRCP also urges the political and religious parties to take up the cause of the long-suffering segments of the populace by unambiguously condemning this brutality and playing their role in promoting sectarian and religious harmony. They must also exert and sustain pressure on the government to do its duty to protect the lives and religious freedoms of the people”

Zohra Yusuf

Chairperson