Those who were not meant to be martyrs, Zeeba T Hashmi

Those who were not meant to be martyrs, Zeeba T Hashmi

Daily Times    January 22, 2016

The fallen have been deemed martyrs, maybe rightly so, as our educational institutions have indeed become battlegrounds for our scholars. But does it really do any justice to those who had no intention to be martyred?

And so it has happened again. After the passing of a year and a month, another gruesome attack took place in an educational institution. This time, the target of the terrorists was Bacha Khan University in Charsadda, which is about 50 km from Peshawar. From media reports, we learnt that four terrorists had entered the university complex. About 21 people, including one professor, have been killed and more than 60 people injured. According to the Vice Chancellor (VC) of the university, there were 3,000 students present on the premises when the attack occurred. They were hosting about 600 guests who had gathered for a poetry recital to commemorate the 28th death anniversary of Bacha Khan. Though it has been a relief that a large death toll has been averted by the quick response of army personnel, it does not mean the terrorists have been unsuccessful. In fact, they have become stronger, availing every opportunity they find in our security loopholes.

We must not be oblivious to the fact that beside this and the Army Public School (APS) incident last year, there have been over 900 school attacks since 2009, depicting a dangerous situation for our children to face. The security of schools, to date, remains a huge concern for the authorities despite steps to improve it. Condemnations, as expected, have followed this attack. The fallen students, a teacher, security guards and security personnel have been deemed martyrs, maybe rightly so, as our educational institutions have indeed become battlegrounds for our scholars. But does it really do any justice to those who had no intention to be martyred? They were there to study and become future professionals, on whom many a hope was pinned. Have their lives been taken in vain?

Does singing patriotic songs in their honour really help? The mother of a fallen child in the APS school attack screamed in pain saying she did not ready her little one for this martyrdom but to learn at school. To call them martyrs is to sort of distract one’s attention from the real problem: the failure of the state to protect its people.

Exactly how serious is the role of the state in countering terrorism? Operation Zarb-e-Azab and the National Action Plan (NAP) have failed with this incident. The government cedes in to the demands of the military, yet it does not have the power to ensure the transparency and accountability of the security establishment’s operations. The controversial military trials of the terrorists or those accused of being involved in terrorism was a desperate attempt by parliament to aggressively address the violent menace by enabling the military to take them to task. But with the steps taken towards it, the inefficiency of the process has started to surface, sparking more questions on the extent of the army’s successes in eliminating terrorism. Umer Mansoor, the head of the Taliban in Khyber Paktunkhwa and also the mastermind behind the APS school attack, has been held responsible for this attack but, according to some media outlets, another faction of the Taliban has denied such a claim. The confusion created over this claim is worrisome, as it provides easy ground for our authorities to blame the “external hand” and relieve itself from the necessary focus on homegrown militancy. There is the question as to why a person like Umer Mansoor, who has vowed to take revenge against the state by targeting children, remains unaffected by Zarb-e-Azab. It should also be mentioned that this attack occurred just a day after a military check post was attacked by militants in Peshawar.

With a harrowing incident like this, the interior minister has become almost invisible as he remains incapacitated in issuing statements on his own. He even feels powerless to take action against Lal Masjid’s Maulana Aziz who has been involved in propagating jihadist mentality, justifying militancy and even in having links with terrorist groups, including Islamic State (IS). So far, banned militant groups are working with other names, and hence are not easily detected. Moreover, organisations like the Quetta Shura, Haqanni network and Jamatud Dawa are considered strategic assets that are hardly touched. The problem lies in their uncontrolled networking with other proscribed organisations, resulting in militancy that cannot be resisted by our security agencies.

In other words, all the policies made by the establishment in protecting the strategic assets has backfired, as they no longer are in their direct control. With the current security policies adopted by the military, the claim of the army chief to completely free the country of terrorism this year seems dubious.

The state considers raising the walls of schools, providing training to teachers on the use of guns and employing more security guards for duty at school gates but all this does not seem to be working towards deterring suicide bombers from attacking. The terrorists are in fact far more sophisticated and well-trained, standing invincible before the teachers who have been provided meagre self-defence training. It is not expected of the teachers to be commandos when an attack occurs even though there have been stories of the immense bravery of teachers who confronted the terrorists by sacrificing their lives for the protection of their students.

The real weapon is not the superficial policies of enhancing school security; in fact, it is better coordination and liaison between different security agencies to prevent an attack from taking place. There are various security agencies working on the ground who have links with militant organisations and know well in advance their intention or next moves through tips they receive from their paid informants. But it appears that every such agency is working on its own agenda, hence lacking cohesion and a central command.

It is nothing but a bit of sincerity and efficiency of the modus operandi that can play a decisive role in eliminating terrorism. This is not to say that the army as an institution is not sincere. In fact, it is the brave army personnel on the frontlines who have laid down their lives for the sake of their nation. It is, in fact, the lack of transparency and accountability of this institution by the state that fails to bring to surface those who are responsible for the army’s failures.

The writer tweets at @zeebahashmi and can be reached at zeeba.hashmi@gmail.com

Was Jinnah confused? Yasser Latif Hamdani

Was Jinnah confused? Yasser Latif Hamdani  

Daily Times    18 January 2016

As a Congressman, Jinnah viewed with suspicion the creation of the All India Muslim League in 1906 and was trenchantly opposed to the creation of that political party

A public intellectual, who I really respect, recently forwarded the opinion that Jinnah was confused and was unclear about what he wanted for Pakistan, i.e. whether he wanted it to be a secular state or an Islamic state. After all, different parts of Jinnah’s speeches are quoted by both the secularists and Islamists to prove their own point. I respectfully disagree with this view. Having read Jinnah in some detail, I am of the view that Jinnah was absolutely clear in what he wanted but in order to understand Jinnah you have to be aware not just of his agitation for Pakistan, which lasted seven years, but his political career starting from the time he campaigned for Indian nationalist Dadabhoy Naoroji in London.

As an Indian student in London studying to be a barrister, Jinnah was largely influenced by the writings of John Morley who he had the opportunity of listening to in the House of Commons. John Morley at the time was the embodiment of British liberalism and radicalism. He was a great opponent of imperialism and it was this idealism that Jinnah imbibed as a young Indian. He saw himself as nothing but. His identity as a Muslim was secondary and, to him, rather rudimentary. Therefore, he was not influenced by the followers of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan who wanted to chart a separate political course for Muslims. In 1904, by the time he had made a name for himself as a barrister, Jinnah first attended a meeting of the Indian National Congress and became its contributing member. From that point onwards he was a dedicated member of Congress. It is a forgotten fact of history that Jinnah was the biggest critic of the Simla deputation of Muslim notables who were agitating for separate electorates.

As a Congressman, Jinnah viewed with suspicion the creation of the All India Muslim League in 1906 and was trenchantly opposed to the creation of that political party, which to him seemed to be the British policy of divide and rule. In 1910, it was as a Congressman that Jinnah defeated the Muslim League candidate in an election on a Muslim seat in Bombay. Later, it was on the behest of Congress that Jinnah joined the Muslim League in order to wrest it from the loyalists and pro-British Muslims, which he succeeded in doing so. Not only did the Muslim League change its creed from unwaveringly loyalty to the crown to a party demanding self-rule, but in 1916, Jinnah managed to bring the Muslim League and Congress on the same platform essentially with the Lucknow Pact. The pact was hailed as the culmination of Hindu-Muslim unity and a landmark in the Indian independence movement. It was the Khilafat Movement that caused Jinnah’s split with Congress. Jinnah was trenchantly opposed to Gandhi’s encouragement of the Muslim ulema (clergy) in politics around a religious cause. With the Khilafat Movement, religious identities became non-negotiable just as Jinnah had warned Gandhi they would. Jinnah’s attempt over the next two decades, i.e. from 1920 to 1940, were aimed at resurrecting the Lucknow Pact and to bringing about a common front between Congress and the League against the British.

In this effort, Jinnah’s biggest handicap was the geography and demographics of the subcontinent. Muslims formed majorities in the northwest and the northeast of the subcontinent. In Punjab, Muslim opinion was dominated by the Unionist Party, which was a loyalist pro-British party of Muslim landlords allied with loyalist Hindus and Sikhs in the province. In the east, Fazlul Haq and his followers dominated Muslim politics. Consequently, the Jinnah-led Muslim League lost in these Muslim majority areas. It did well in places like UP where Muslims were a minority but Congress there could safely ignore Jinnah and the League because Congress had won overwhelmingly on the general seats. Therefore, by the late 1930s, Jinnah realised that the political fortunes of the Muslim League lay in winning the Muslim majority provinces. The erstwhile Pakistan demand mooted in Punjab and Sindh gave Jinnah that opportunity. By 1940, he came out guns blazing with the demand for a Muslim homeland. His calculation was — as shown so ably by Ayesha Jalal in her book Sole Spokesman — that Gandhi, Nehru and Congress would under no circumstances accept partition and would rather negotiate with him and the Muslim League into agreeing to a share in power for the Muslim minority at an all India level. His strategy almost worked when the Cabinet Mission Plan put forth a three-tier federation of India, with the grouping scheme in 1946. Yet it turned out to be a miscalculation when Congress all but ditched the plan and agreed to partition the country in 1947. Jinnah was therefore handed a moth-eaten Pakistan in 1947, which he did not think Congress would ever agree to give him.

Having achieved what he had been agitating for but what he really was using as a bargaining counter, Jinnah was left with the task of creating a new nation from scratch. As a liberal democrat, Jinnah envisaged Pakistan to be a modern democratic state where people of all creeds could live as equal citizens. This vision he expressed on several occasions and not just his famous August 11 speech. Yet as a politician he had to also refer to Islam while speaking in the idiom of his people. What Islamists and Jinnah’s detractors alike forget is that his references to Islam without exception were to prove that Islam was compatible with modern democracy and human equality. His speech to the Bar Association, quoted flippantly to prove that he wanted an Islamic state, when read in entirety says the same thing.

Jinnah was absolutely and unwaveringly against theocracy. He was against bars being placed on non-Muslims from aspiring to the highest offices in the state. As a potent symbolic move, Jinnah appointed a Hindu to be the first law minister of Pakistan. Jinnah was never confused about what he wanted for the new nation and he certainly did not want a state where “priests with a divine mission” would rule the roost and where odious “constitutional” bodies like the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) and Federal Shariat Court (FSC) would sit in judgment on the will of the people. It is a great tragedy that we have abandoned that pluralistic and inclusive vision for Pakistan.

The writer is a lawyer based in Lahore and the author of the book Mr Jinnah: Myth and Reality. He can be contacted via twitter @therealylh and through his email address yasser.hamdani@gmail.com

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/18-Jan-2016/was-jinnah-confused

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.