Operation Gulmarg of 22 October was a Pakistani attack to occupy Kashmir.

 

Operation Gulmarg of 22 October was a Pakistani attack to occupy Kashmir.

Presentation of Dr Shabir Choudhry in a Seminar jointly organised by JKINA and JKIPA in Nottingham, England.

1. Mr Chairman, yesterday I planned to make a detailed presentation in an international Webinar organised by United Kashmir Peoples National Party. I wanted to speak on the following three aspects of Operation Gulmarg.

   • Why did Pakistan attack Kashmir?

   • Why Jammu and Kashmir dispute was referred to the UN

     Security Council

   • Was Mr Jinnah aware of the Operation Gulmarg?

2. However due to time constraints, I could only speak on the role of Mr Jinnah, and only briefly touched the other two aspects.

3. A fellow panellist made some negative remarks on my presentation, and advised me and others to avoid criticising the founder of Pakistan because the Pakistani people will get angry. Also, he said that KH Khurshid was Mr Jinnah’s Secretary, and he did not mention these things in his book.

4. Apart from that he said, I studied Science, and sarcastically said those who study social sciences, they pick up things from here and there, and make up stories to prove their point.

5. Mr Chairman, today I want to briefly explain what the tribal invasion did to us and the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and what was the role of KH Khurshid.

6. On 16 August 1947, we had our own State. We had a government; we had an Assembly. We had a Prime Minister and we had Maharaja Hari Singh as Head of this State.

1

7. Despite a written agreement, we were attacked by Pakistan in the name of Jihad.

8. Our State was divided by force. Tens of thousands of innocent people were killed, women raped and kidnapped.

9. Since October 1947, we have been suffering on both sides of the divide because of this imperialist attack disguised as a jihad.

10. The Tribal invasion, as far as people of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, was a major event in the modern history of Jammu and Kashmir. In unprovoked and unilateral violation of the Standstill Agreement, the Pakistani Government decided to teach the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir a lesson; and snatch Jammu and Kashmir by military might.

11. It was not only catastrophic because it resulted in the death of tens of thousands of innocent people, rapes and kidnapping of women and girls; but it also changed the course of our history.

12.

This unprovoked aggression had the following impact:

• It changed our destination.

• It changed secular ethos of Jammu and Kashmir.

• It deprived us of our independence.

• It divided our beloved motherland.

• It divided families and people of Jammu and Kashmir.

• It killed innocent men and women.

• It dishonoured women and girls of Jammu and Kashmir.

• It plundered and looted the resources of Jammu and

  Kashmir.

• It is the main cause of our present miseries and troubles

  on both sides of the forced division.

• Name of Islam was used to advance imperial agenda of

  Pakistan, and to kill innocent people in name of religion.

• In one sentence, it is the cause of all our problems we face

  today.

2

13. The Operation Gulmarg was planned by Brigadier Akbar Khan on the instructions of the Pakistani Government. The plan was finalised in a meeting in Lahore in the first week of September in a small secret meeting. The meeting was chaired by Prime Minister of Pakistan, Liaquat Ali Khan, and was attended by Finance Minister Ghulam Mohammed, Mian Iftikhar Ud Din, Sardar Shaukat Ayat and Brigadier Akbar Khan.

14. Brigadier Akbar Khan, on instructions of the political leaders of Pakistan, emphasised in his Plan that presence and involvement of the Pakistan government must not be visible. The entire matter should be presented as a local uprising of Muslims of Jammu and Kashmir against ‘cruel Hindu despot’.

15. In my presentation to prove my points I quoted from Mountbatten’s top-secret reports which he sent to London as a Governor General of India.; and which were published after some decades. If my critics and KH Khurshid did not study these reports, it is not my fault.

16. Also, I quoted from a book called ‘Mission with Mountbatten’, written by Alan Campbell – Johnson, who was Mountbatten’s Press Attaché in India between 1947 till June 1948, if my critics and KH Khurshid did not read this book it is not my fault.

17. Apart from that, I quoted from credible English and Pakistani writers like Collins and Lapierre, Major General Akbar Khan, Major Agha Humayun Amin and Humayun Mirza. If my critics and KH Khurshid did not read these books, then it is not my fault.

18. Some of these critics say they have no time to read books or do research, but sadly, when people like me spend months and years in research and identify the culprits, these critics with their little knowledge and myopic view of the political and strategic give sermon to us that we should not name them as Pakistanis will get angry.

3

19. I don’t like to give any sermons. However, I strongly emphasise that we must identify who were the culprits. Who planned the attack? What was their agenda and who were the local collaborators?

20. Perhaps, these people have no remorse that our state is divided because of these culprits.

21. They don’t feel the pain and suffering of the families who were divided as a direct result of this conspiracy.

22. They feel no regret that daughters of Jammu and Kashmir were kidnapped and raped because Pakistan launched this attack to capture Kashmir.

23. Thousands of Pakistanis who have clear conscience and who have read books on history other than Pakistan Studies, strongly criticise their government’s Kashmir policy, and the policy of those who arranged the attack known as an Operation Gulmarg.

24. Mr Chairman, we have people who claim to be working for unification and independence of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and yet their worry is if we name the culprits who created all the problems for us mentioned above, some Pakistanis will get angry.

25. Those who are worried about anger, happiness and satisfaction of Pakistan, is it not time for them to say goodbye to the struggle for independence, because Pakistanis don’t like the independence of Jammu and Kashmir?

26. Perhaps, people should not talk about the plight of people of Mirpur who were uprooted from their homes because Pakistan constructed Mangla dam to satisfy their energy and water needs?

27. Should political activists remain quiet about problems of the people of Muzaffarabad who have serious water shortage, and

4

environmental issues because Pakistan diverted the natural course of River Neelam.

28. Apart from that, do you think people should not complain about the role of the Pakistani lent officers, because these Pakistanis and many others will get angry.

29. When people talk about looting and plundering of our resources by Pakistan, I am sure Pakistanis get upset on this, so should people remain quiet, and ask the Pakistanis to continue with what they are doing. We will not complain or name you because we don’t want to make you angry?

30.

5

Mr Chairman, I want to present some more facts, which may

upset some Pakistanis, or upset their sympathisers? I do not

intend to upset anyone. I don’t get any satisfaction from upsetting

people. However, I have a role to share my knowledge and

experience with people, and expose the propaganda of Pakistan.

They have fooled people of Pakistan and Muslims of Jammu and

Kashmir since 1947 in name of Islam and Muslim brotherhood to

confuse and manipulate them.

31. Mr Chairman, I have nothing against KH Khurshid. He was a son of soil, a fellow citizen of Jammu and Kashmir. He was a barrister as well. He worked as a secretary of Mr Jinnah, and helped him in his struggle to divide India in name of Islam, and establish Pakistan with disastrous outcomes for the people of the Indian Sub-Continent. By no stretch of imagination one can claim that KH Khurshid knew everything related to the partition of India and what My Jinnah did.

32. Those who have worked in offices or have a professional background in business, politics or in administration know very well that the Boss does not tell everything to his secretary. Generally, the secretary is dictated by the boss what he should do, for example, type a letter and send it to newspapers or to XYZ. Receive phone calls, make records of things, keep a diary of the boss, make files, make appointments etc.

33. KH Khurshid did his Bar, but he had no experience under his belt. Why do we assume that the role of KH Khurshid was different from a normal Secretary of that era? Why we assume that he knew everything related to the partition of India; and that Mr Jinnah confided secret matters with him. Or Mr Jinnah consulted him on political or social matters.

34. Historians tell us that Mr Jinnah only trusted one person, and that was Mr Jinnah himself. He did not even trust his close colleagues and senior leaders of the Muslim League.

35. I am not interested in how well he served the interests of Mr Jinnah, and how he helped him to divide India by promoting communalism. My criterion is a simple one, what did he do for Jammu and Kashmir? As a Secretary of Mr Jinnah what did he achieve for Jammu and Kashmir?

36. When plans were made to attack Jammu and Kashmir what did he do? When my country was under attack and my countrymen were butchered, and our women were kidnapped and raped by the Pakistani invaders, what did he do? Was he even aware of this conspiracy that his boss and his colleagues were planning to attack Kashmir?

37. People who have some knowledge of the history of that time may say KH Khurshid was in Prison in Srinagar before the attack, how could he have helped his countrymen. Do they know why he was sent to Srinagar at that time when the situation was at a boiling point? If he was so important to Mr Jinnah, why did he send him to Srinagar to ascertain the exact situation of Kashmir that Mr Jinnah could take appropriate actions.

38. Even when he came back to Pakistan in a prisoner exchange, and his country was forcibly divided by actions of his boss and his colleagues, did he even issue a statement against this illegal and imperial attack?

6

39. Even when Pakistani soldiers attacked Poonch in Azad Kashmir in the 1950s to crush a rebellion against Pakistan, what role did KH Khurshid play? Did he oppose this? Did he hold any demonstration against Pakistan? Did he issue any press release to criticise what Pakistan was doing in so called Azad Kashmir?

40. Remember, history of Jammu and Kashmir does not start with KH Khurshid; and surely it does not end with his death. He wrote on Jammu and Kashmir what he knew, or what he thought was appropriate to make public.

41. He was appointed President of so-called Azad Kashmir just like his predecessors. At no time, he declared that this region was under the occupation of Pakistan. By becoming a President of so-called Azad Kashmir, like the previous Presidents, he also confirmed that the 22 October attack was justified and that this area was liberated.

42. People need to know that Mangla Dam was built during his reign. People of Mirpur who opposed the construction of this illegal Dam and protested, were beaten up, tortured and put in prison during his Presidency.

43. After becoming the President of Azad Kashmir, what did he do for the people of Gilgit Baltistan? How many times did he visit this region to investigate their plight and suffering?

44. If the Pakistani occupied Kashmir was ‘azad’, then as a President of this azad Government, what actions did he take to liberate the other Kashmir which he thought was under the occupation of India?

45. He was appointed in the same way by Pakistan and removed by them. So, in what way he was different from other Presidents of so-called Azad Kashmir. Like Sardar Qayyum Khan and sardar Ibrahim Khan he was also put in prison by Pakistan, and like them when he was released, he also did not utter a word against injustice of Pakistan.

7

46. I agree, he introduced a new concept that Azad Kashmir should be recognised by Pakistan, and that Pakistan should help to get this territory recognised by other countries as well. Even on this, we need to know that senior leaders of that time, like Foreign Minister of Pakistan, Manzoor Qadir, were of the view that Pakistasn need to take a new approach on Jammu and Kashmir dispute, and this idea of recognising Azad Kashmir was floated.

47. Did he not sign Act 74, which very strongly strengthened the Pakistani hold on so called Azad Kashmir?

48. Did he not, under pressure from Zulfqar Bhutto, Prime Minister of Pakistan, merge his party into the Peoples Party. So where was his ideology? How strong was his commitment to this ideology? Or was this idea given to him by Pakistan?

49. KH Khurshid is no longer with us, and I can pray for his forgiveness, but please don’t expect me to hold him in high esteem just because he was a ‘Secretary’ of the man who promoted communalism and divided India, in which more than half million people died.

50. To me, he was just another leader of Azad Kashmir who served the interests of Pakistan. Since he was Secretary of Mr Jinnah, people see him in a different light. Give him the credit he deserves, but don’t present him as a great nationalist leader of Jammu and Kashmir, which he was not.

51. As a student of history and politics I have to see if his actions were pro Jammu and Kashmir and pro people of the Indian Sub- Continent, or his actions resulted in harming the people of Jammu and Kashmir, and our national cause.

52. I am not among those who were influenced by his sweet talk towards the end of his life, when he knew he would not get another chance from Pakistan to serve the Pakistani interests by

8

becoming Prime Minister or a president of so-called Azad Kashmir.

53. Mr Chairman, thank you for your patience. I know so many issues and important aspects I could not cover because of the time constraint. If people have any questions on this, please do ask, I will reply to them.

9

POLITICS has gone into a tailspin and stakeholders could be heading back to the drawing board. Here are 10 key pointers:

 POLITICS has gone into a tailspin and stakeholders could be heading back to the drawing board. Here are 10 key pointers:

1. The relationship between PTI and the establishment is under unprecedented strain ever since Prime Minister Imran Khan refused to notify Lt Gen Nadeem Ahmad Anjum as the new DG ISI as announced by the ISPR on Oct 6, 2021. The strain is getting more intense by the day as the disagreement slowly but menacingly morphs into a stand-off. It may get resolved sooner or later, but the damage appears to have been done.

2. The stand-off has also brought the army’s routine postings — announced on Oct 6 — to a standstill. This too may be unprecedented. Since the prime minister has not signed the notification for Lt Gen Nadeem Anjum to take charge as DG ISI, he has not relinquished charge as corps commander Karachi. Lt Gen Muhammad Saeed cannot therefore take charge as corps commander Karachi and Lt Gen Nauman Mahmood cannot relinquish charge as corps commander Peshawar to join as president National Defence University because Lt Gen Faiz Hameed cannot relinquish charge as DG ISI to take over as corps commander Peshawar. And round and round it goes for the others who received their posting orders 10 days ago. Things do not work like this in the army.

3. Confusion exists whether the PM Office has received the summary containing three names for the appointment as DG ISI. There is a strange silence from the government. On Wednesday, ministers had confirmed the summary had been received and TV channels as well as newspapers ran the story. Military sources later denied the summary had been sent. In yet another unprecedented move, the names and photos of the three lieutenant generals supposedly presented for selection in the summary were flashed across TV screens. This made many within the establishment very uncomfortable. Now the PM wants to meet all three candidates so he can reject two three-star generals. This too is making many in the institution very uncomfortable.

4. PTI ministers, parliamentarians and party members are in a daze. Their political compass seems to have gone all wonky and true north is becoming impossible to navigate. They suddenly find themselves in ‘Nawaz Sharif territory’ in reference to tension with the establishment and this is as alien to them as landing on Mars. The situation has all the hallmarks of situations past when governments started their slide. “Is this the beginning of the end?” asked a PTI senator this week. He may have been reflecting the fears of a majority of his colleagues.

5. Things were building up. Sources have confirmed that it was back in July this year that army chief Gen Qamar Bajwa had asked Prime Minister Imran Khan that he needed to make transfers and postings and Lt Gen Faiz Hameed would have to move out of the ISI as a routine. The PM had deferred the decision. The army chief raised the topic again in August and September and both times the PM said he would discuss the issue soon. In October, Gen Bajwa told the PM he could not wait much longer as three lieutenant generals were retiring and he had to order the transfers. Matters subsequently escalated into the events of the last 10 days. The stand-off continues.

6. Till 10 days back, PTI was dreaming of a second five-year term. Now many in the party are concerned how they can hang on till the next elections. Their existential fears are based on the following: (a) their wafer-thin majority in the National Assembly is dependent on their allies MQM, GDA and PML-Q and if the allies ditch them the party for them might be over; (b) many among their own members are those who won as independents and will now be sniffing the wind, (c) a large number of PTI ticket holders are pro-establishment politicians and if they were forced to choose between the two sides, no one is in doubt which side they will opt for; (d) one establishment official recently remarked: “all we have to do is step back.”

7. This rupture was not supposed to happen so soon. Now that it has, the opposition has also gone back to the drawing board. PML-N is possibly drawing the following conclusion at this stage: (a) no change in the National Assembly or in the Punjab Assembly can happen without PML-N as per the numbers; (b) bringing down the PTI government in Islamabad is not a difficult task if the establishment steps back and withdraws its crucial support — more difficult is to agree on who or what replaces it; (c) PML-N will not like to be part of any set-up in the centre between now and elections in 2023, but it can support a new coalition if it means the ouster of PM Imran Khan; (d) This means PML-N can drive a hard bargain for this support but not such a hard one that it becomes a deal-breaker because if the present set-up is packed off, PML-N will be the biggest game in town — again.

8. PM Khan would also consider his options: (a) refuse to step back and insist he appoints the DG ISI on his terms thereby sending a signal that he is the boss — regardless of the cost; (b) escalate further and appoint someone other than the person already announced; (c) send everyone packing home and call early elections; (d) get ousted and conjure up an anti-establishment narrative

9. None of these are good options knowing that PTI is burdened with: (a) weak parliamentary numbers and acute dependency on unreliable allies and members; (b) poor governance performance; (c) political isolation as a result of divisive politics; (d) shortage of anti-establishment space on the political spectrum in the presence of Nawaz Sharif.

10. A PTI member remarked this week: “Perhaps Nawaz was right all along.” Irony died a painful death.

The writer is Dawn’s resident editor in Islamabad.

Twitter: @fahdhusain

Published in Dawn, October 16th, 2021

Growing Pakistan Uzbekistan Relations

Growing Pakistan Uzbekistan Relations

Zafar Iqbal Yousafzai*

 

Pakistan-Uzbekistan relations in recent times are growing and cooperation is on the rise between the two important countries of South Asia and Central Asia. The recent visit of Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan to Uzbekistan was an indication the two states are expanding their multi-faceted mutual cooperation. During his two-days visit, Imran Khan addressed Uzbekistan-Pakistan Business Forum on ‘Central and South Asia 2021: Regional Connectivity and Opportunities’.

Mr. Khan expressed his hope for connectivity of both the states through aviation, road, and rail. “Pakistan has immense potential to connect Central Asia with the rest of the world and become a hub of trade,” Khan added. 

The recent cooperation is happening in a time where there is a change in the regional dynamics. The U.S. and China are trying to make their clout strong in Central Asia while the change in Afghanistan is going to happen once the U.S. completes its withdrawal. Islamabad sees the potential to connect with Uzbekistan through Afghanistan. In his address, Mr. Khan said, “Pakistan is keen for peace in Afghanistan and considers it vital for trade connectivity among the regional countries.” Pakistan aims to link Uzbekistan through a rail link with Pakistan via Afghanistan. 

An agreement has been signed in February this year to develop a railroad through Termez-Mazar-i-Sharif-Kabul-Peshawar, an important connectivity project that would boost trade between the three states and get two important regions connected in addition to Uzbekistan and Afghanistan access to Pakistani Seaports. The project will take five years which is 600-kilometer-long.  Tashkent aims to diversify its Sea access option beyond its reliance on Iranian ports. On the other hand, Pakistan will also get access to Central Asia and beyond which it has sought since the independence of the Central Asian States in early The 1990s. the said railroad will decrease Pakistan’s transportation costs to Russia by 15-20 percent. 

For two major reasons, Uzbekistan prefer Mazar-i-Sharif-Kabul-Peshawar railroad: its shortest one. Secondly, it connects the Uzbekistan-Kyrghizstan-China corridor with Europe and South Asia. 

Among other reasons, the U.S.-Iran rivalry is also a factor because of that reason Uzbekistan want a safe passage and option. Tashkent has hugely invested in the transportation sector to connect the Iranian ports with Uzbekistan but it fears Tehran’s escalation with Washington can cost Tashkent of heavy price. Bandar Abbas is the main port Tashkent is using for its trade. Once these projects are materialized, it will add great value to the objectives of both states. 

Pakistan’s strategic policy vis-à-vis Central Asia has five broad objectives: trade and connectivity, strong political link, investment, and energy sector cooperation, defense and security and people-to-people contact. Islamabad has made many endeavors since the independence of the Central Asia to get access to it yet due to Afghanistan’s precarious security situation, this plan did not come true. Now at the moment when a change is going to occur in Afghanistan, Islamabad sees a ray of hope to get safe access to Central Asian states. 

On the other hand, Pakistan is the shortest, easiest and economical connectivity route to the Arabian Sea for Central Asian states and specifically for Uzbekistan. Islamabad is willing to help facilitate Central Asian states to engage in trade via its sea routes. Similarly, Uzbekistan and Pakistan can engage in various sectors including trade, tourism, education, health, and energy projects. Moreover, Pakistan’s renewed focus is geo-economics which can strengthen Pakistan-Uzbekistan relations. However, for the said purpose, peace in the region and particularly in Afghanistan is essential for any trade, investment, and connectivity initiative. Similarly, the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative will further bring both countries close to each other as it has to connect Pakistan with Central Asia and beyond. 

*The author is Senior Research Associate at Strategic Vision Institute, Islamabad and author of the forthcoming book “The Troubled Triangle: US-Pakistan Relations under the Taliban’s Shadow” (Routledge). He tweets @yousafzaiZafar5 

https://www.eurasiareview.com/30072021-growing-pakistan-uzbekistan-relations-oped/

Role of Turkey In Afghanistan

 

Role of Turkey In Afghanistan

Yanis Iqbal

 

USA has been launching airstrikes across Afghanistan as part of an effort to support Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF) in their offensives against the Taliban. The southern Kandahar and northern Kunduz provinces have been the focus of the military campaigns. Even as Taliban is being held up in its quest to take over the country, Turkey has been stretching its diplomatic sinews. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is going ahead with his plans to take over security at the Kabul international airport after the pullout of US troops. On July 22, 2021, Mir Rahman Rahmani, the speaker of Afghanistan’s House of the People, had a phone conversation with Mustafa Şentop, Turkey’s Parliament Speaker. The former said: “We support all initiatives taken by Turkey for safeguarding Kabul airport…We believe that the Turkish Armed Forces would better assure the security of the airport than other countries.”

A Convergence of Interests 

The near simultaneity of Washington’s attacks on Taliban and Ankara’s sustained accentuation of its willingness to supervise Kabul airport brings out the prominent aspects of the emerging US strategy in Afghanistan. Ever since US President Joe Biden announced in late April 2021 that the American Empire would end its longest war by September 11 of the same year, imperial planners have been wading through the muck of geopolitics to fuse the removal of US troops with a continuing security footprint, so that the Taliban does not simply topple the Western-backed government of Ashraf Ghani. Further, American defeat in Afghanistan has necessitated a re-jigging of the outlook toward Central Asia and Caspian Sea oil. Turkey appears to have solved this conundrum by readily stationing itself on the Afghan chessboard as a subcontractor for USA’s ambitions. An alternative route for oil supply has also been found insofar Turkey enjoys increasing influence in Azerbaijan, a Caspian Sea country. 

But why has Turkey been selected for the Afghan role? Veteran journalist Saeed Naqvi situates this decision in the global panorama of regional balances. First, “This will be welcome to Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia. The last two will be dreaming of the extreme Islam of the Taleban blending with the Akhwan ul Muslimeen (Muslim Brotherhood) of which Erdogan is now an unabashed leader. This will be expected to be a bulwark against Iran.” Second, setting Erdogan off to Kabul will “ration some of his time away from West Asia where the growing influence of the Muslim Brotherhood causes anxiety to Abdel Fattah el-Sisi in Egypt whose suppression of the Brothers cannot last eternally… Brothers in Egypt will have a huge morale booster, should Erdogan without other distractions go full throttle in his Muslim Brotherhood avatar. The revival of the Brothers in Egypt will be of considerable help to Hamas which is another name for the Brothers. This will be a thorn in the side of Israel.” 

 

As is evident, a variety of interests converge in the Ankara-Kabul nexus. What’s more, Erdogan’s pivot to Afghanistan can pay political dividends since he has staked claims for the mantle of leadership of the Turkic world stretching from the Black Sea to the steppes of Central Asia. In the words of Naqvi, a Turkish foothold in the Hindu Kush “has the potential of opening vistas across central Asia, an expansive oil rich block of Turkic speaking people.” However, this game plan is not entirely free of conflictual equations. Taliban has castigated Turkey’s offer to protect Kabul’s international airport as “ill-advised, a violation of our sovereignty and territorial integrity and against our national interest”, threatening to treat it as an “occupation”. 

China and Russia

Taliban is not the only actor having troubles with Turkey’s military presence. Afghanistan is bounded by China on its northeast and Central Asian states in its north – which in turn share borders with Russia. Both the countries fear that Turkey will seek to support and foment transnational jihadi networks known to be situated in Afghanistan’s north. Turkey’s influential role in consorting with jihadi elements in Syria, facilitating their relocation to Libya and even exporting some to the Nagorno-Karabakh war has – as MK Bhadrakumar remarks – earned the country the notoriety of being “a clone of the US in its genius for manipulating “Islamist terrorists” as geopolitical tools – with the added virtue of being notionally a Muslim country. It can be trusted to navigate the jihadis in the Hindu Kush toward a higher destiny in times ahead.”

 

Russia’s concerns about its historically explosive Muslim regions will heighten as Turkish engagement in Central Asia increases. This will challenge Ankara’s relationship with Moscow, which is already under strain in Libya, Syria, Caucasus and potentially in the Black Sea and the Balkans. For China, Turkey’s inclusion in the Afghan stakes will spell the prospect of greater trouble in Xinjiang. Turkey is home to a large exiled Uighur community. Erdogan, pursuing pan-Islamist neo-Ottoman goals, has been clamoring about the Uyghur issue for some time. When China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi visited Turkey in March 2021, more than 1000 Uighur protesters were allowed to gather in Istanbul to protest his diplomatic presence. These ideological intonations suggest that Turkey could provide support to the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM) – an ethnic Uighur extremist group responsible for past terror attacks in China and which seeks to transform China’s Xinjiang region into an independent Islamic state.

Thus, China is not only facing a few ETIM fighters in Afghanistan but a possibly well-organized force of jihadist armies backed by state and non-state entities with direct territorial access to Xinjiang via Afghanistan. The deputy governor of Afghanistan’s northern Badakshan province said in a media interview that the militant groups overrunning national forces in the province are largely multi-ethnic, including Tajiks, Chechens, Uyghurs and Uzbeks. In an article for Asia Times, Salman Rafi Sheikh notes: “While currently allied with the Taliban, the transitional jihadis could switch sides and become a Turkish insurgent proxy if they perceive the Taliban seeks to abandon them in exchange for China’s, Russia’s and Iran’s diplomatic recognition and potential aid for reconstruction.”

Refugees 

From March 2021 to July 2021, the number of Afghan refugees rose from around 8,000 to 26,000 people, an increase of 229%. Refugee displacement has ended up on Turkey’s eastern borders. In 2020, UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) figures showed Afghans as the largest migrant group hazarding the dangerous sea crossing in the Aegean, from Turkey into Greece. The international body put the number of Afghan asylum seekers Turkey hosts at 125,104 in a 2020 report. Yet, many analysts estimate the number of irregular immigrants of Afghan origin in the country to be more than 500,000. Turkish authorities caught more than 25,000 irregular immigrants of Afghan origin in the first half of 2021. On July 19, 2021, security forces detained nearly 1,500 migrants, most of them Afghans, near the country’s southeastern border with Iran, as well as 11 people on suspicion of human trafficking. 

 

The moral squalidity of the refugee problem created by the Afghan cauldron needs to be redressed. Yet, the world-system under which we live is not going to allow a durable resolution of this brutality. While the West and its allies build strong fortresses to keep the mass of humanity out of their national frontiers, the exploitative mechanisms of imperialism create the conditions for mass displacement. Both of these processes go hand in hand, reinforcing each other. The contemporary power politics surrounding Afghanistan exemplifies imperialist carnivoracity for endless wealth-making. Instead of paying attention to the basic needs of the Afghan people and crafting a politically negotiated settlement to the crisis in Kabul, global powers and their lackeys have devised an updated form of opportunist statecraft which plays with the wretched nature of neo-colonies to strengthen and rebalance imperialist agendas.

Yanis Iqbal

Yanis Iqbal is an independent researcher and freelance writer based in Aligarh, India and can be contacted at yanisiqbal@gmail.com. His articles have been published by different magazines and websites such as Monthly Review Online, Tehran Times, Modern Diplomacy, ZNet, Canada Files, Anti-war, Midwestern Marx, Anticonquista, Anti-Capitalist Resistance, Challenge, Big News Network, CGTN, Quint, Federación Anarquista, Akademi, South Asia Journal, International Magz, Green Social Thought, New Age, Frontier Post, Green Left, Palestinian Media Center in Europe, Rebelion, Newsclick, Committee for the Abolition of Illegitimate Debt, Weekly Worker, Europe Solidaire Sans Frontières, News and Letters Weekly, Economic and Political Weekly, Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal, Counterfire, Journal of People, Peasants and Workers, The Greanville Post, Plateforme altermondialiste, Dandelion Salad, Scribe, Arena, Eurasia Review, Coventry University Press, Culture Matters, Press TV, Global Research, Independent Australia, Dissident Voice, Axis of Logic, Marxism-Leninism Today, Scoop, United National Antiwar Coalition, Gauri Lankesh News, Kashmir Times, Good Morning Kashmir, Countercurrents, Counterview, Syria 360, Revolutionary Strategic Studies, Socialist Project, Hampton Institute, Orinoco Tribune, Intrepid Report, Ecuador Today, People’s Review, Eleventh Column, Pressenza, Karvaan India, Clarion India, OpEd News, Janata Weekly, The Iraq File, Iraq Sun, Portside and the Institute of Latin American Studies.

https://www.eurasiareview.com/29072021-turkeys-role-in-afghanistan-oped/

Sedition charges, Zafar Aafaq

 Sedition charges, Zafar Aafaq

India & Pakistan Govts United In Illegally Using Sedition Law Despite Court Warnings.      07 Jul 2021 1

 

With Prime Ministers Narendra Modi and Imran Khan named among 37 ‘predators of press freedom’, Pakistani journalist Hamid Mir on how the governments of India and Pakistan use the 150-yr-old sedition law to stifle dissent despite court rulings against its misuse.

New Delhi: “Sedition was designed to suppress the liberty of the citizen.” Pakistani journalist Hamid Mir, 54, quoted Mahatma Gandhi as he spoke to Article 14 and referred to the 150-year-old law used by both countries to stifle dissent. 

 As in India, where the Supreme Court clarified 60 years ago that section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, could only be used if there was incitement to violence, Pakistani courts have also warned about the misuse of section 124A of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. 

 In 1954, the Pakistani courts said sedition should be applied only to “that degree of disaffection, hatred or contempt which induces people to refuse to recognise the government at all and leads them to unconstitutional methods…” In practice, authorities in both countries ignore court guidelines while using the law to go after dissenting voices: opposition politicians, human rights defenders, students, civil society leaders and journalists. This misuse comes at a time when Reporters Without Borders, a journalism think tank, on 2 July 2021, listed the prime ministers of both countries, Narendra Modi and Imran Khan, as two of 37 global “predators of press freedom”. 

 One of those against whom sedition law has been misused in Pakistan is Mir, who on 15 June 2021 wrote in The Washington Post how the government was weaponizing sedition law as “part of a well-organized war on dissent”.

 “It is deliberately vague, and broad terms enable its abuse. You can be charged with sedition for merely “liking” a Facebook post, for drawing a cartoon or for making a speech,” he wrote. Mir wrote the article in response to the attack on journalist Asad Ali Toor on 25 May 2021 by three armed men who broke into his home. Many suspected they were from Pakistan’s security agencies, and the attack triggered widespread criticism (here and here), including public protests by journalists. 

At one such protest, Mir warned the security establishment that journalists would expose them before the people by sharing “the stories that emerge from inside your homes” if the state did not stop such attacks on the press. “We will tell them whose wife shot whom inside the confines of their home. And which ‘General Rani’ was behind this. I hope you all have understood what I am saying,” he said. Shortly after his speech, Mir was replaced as the anchor of Capital Talk, a flagship programme that he had anchored for years on Geo TV, the country’s most prominent TV station. His column in Daily Jang, a leading Urdu daily, was abruptly ended.

 Applications were moved before Lahore High Court demanding sedition and treason charges against Mir. In Gujranwala, another application seeking treason wrongly accused Mir of mentioning the Chief of Pakistan Army, General Qamar Javed Bajwa in his speech. The applicant later acknowledged he might have “erred a bit” in his petition.

 A cursory glimpse into the history of sedition law in Pakistan reflects a similar picture. Famous poets Faiz Ahmad Faiz and Habib Jalib have been tried under this law on charges of treason and conspiracy. A K Fazlul Haq, who presented the Pakistan resolution on 23 March 1940 as Prime Minister of United Bengal also faced sedition charges. Three former prime ministers and a president—PM Hussain Shaheed Suharwardy, former PM Benazir Bhutto, PM Nawaz Sharif and President Asif Ali Zardar—have been accused of sedition.

In India, Article 14’s sedition database has revealed that since 2010, 11,000 people in India have been booked in 816 cases under sedition law. Of these 65 % were implicated since 2014, when Modi assumed power. Many were booked merely for making “critical” and/or “derogatory” remarks against governments or politicians: 96% of such cases were filed after 2014.  Even as the Modi government filed 25 sedition cases against 3,700 people for participating in the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019, the Pakistani government charged hundreds of people with sedition for holding a protest march. 

 As the threat of a sedition case looms over Mir, he is advocating the revocation of the law and criticising Khan’s government for blocking attempts to repeal it. 

 Pakistan’s ranking on a global press freedom index dropped from 139 in 2018 to 145 today: over the same period, India’s ranking sank from 138 to 142. 

Khan claimed that the Pakistani media were more free than the British media but in May 2021 his government proposed a new law to establish a Pakistan Media Development Authority, which Mir said “would enforce total silence in Pakistani media” as tribunals would be established to “decide what can and cannot be said or written, without notice or a hearing”. 

Offenders would be punished by up to three years in prison and millions of rupees in fines. “This law,” said Mir, “Would enforce total silence in Pakistani media.” Excerpts from an email interview with Mir:

We frequently read reports of censorship and attacks against the media and journalists in Pakistan. You have been banned by your employer from hosting your show.  You wrote in The Guardian that you did not blame them and have offered to apologise for the remarks you made at a protest and which led to the ban. Give us your sense of the ongoing situation.

We are losing our freedom very fast. I am a living example of censorship in Pakistan. I have been a journalist for more than 30 years. Now I can't write in any Pakistani newspapers, and I was also stopped from hosting my show on Geo News just because I made a speech outside National Press Club Islamabad on 28 May.

I condemned an attack on journalist Asad Ali Toor in a very harsh tone and for a reason. Ten journalists were attacked in Islamabad in May 2021. Most of the victims never reported attacks to police because they think attackers were more powerful than police.

Federal Minister of Information Fawad Chaudhry in an interview to BBC claimed that some journalists stage drama of attacks on them just for getting asylum outside Pakistan. These remarks were painful for me because I survived many assassinations attempts in Pakistan, but I never ran away from Pakistan like General Pervez Musharraf.

My speech was not reported by any Pakistani TV channel or any newspaper. It was only viral on social media. Next day I was asked by the management of Geo News to clarify my position. I refused because I never said anything on Geo News. They said we are sending you on leave.

Daily Jang also stopped my column and a campaign against me was started by some self-claimed lovers of the Pakistan Army on social media and on some TV channels. Some applications were filed against me to register sedition cases in different cities.

The Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ) and Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) decided to defend me. They prepared a statement in which I apologized for any inconvenience due to my tone. I also said that I respect the Army but I can't remain silent on attacks against journalists. I never changed my position...I am still banned.

The Pakistan government constantly maintains that journalists and media enjoy freedom and there are no curbs. Prime Minister Imran Khan has said Pakistan media is freer than British media.  How would you respond to such claims?

His claim is a joke. When he became PM in 2018, Pakistan ranked number 139 in World Press Freedom Index. Today Pakistan ranked at 145. All international human rights groups are crying against censorship in Pakistan. The whole world knows what's happening to us but our PM is not aware. I feel pity for him. Maybe he is helpless.

You have survived a bomb under you car, an assassination attempt, face regular trolling, had your column stopped and now your TV station has banned you from doing your show. Has the situation worsened?

I lost my job for the first time in 1994 due to a column about the submarine scandal. Late Benazir Bhutto was PM. She called me and clarified that she is not responsible for my termination from Daily Jang. She offered me a government job but I rejected it. I was forced to resign from the position of Editor Daily Pakistan in 1997 by the then PM Nawaz Sharif. Then I was banned on TV by General Pervez Musharraf in 2007 but Daily Jang never stopped my columns. 

There was no threat to life till 2012 when a bomb was planted under my car. In the last one decade I have survived assassination attempts, faced fake murder and kidnapping charges and also faced a blasphemy charge over a column written against honour killing. 

The situation is getting worse. Musharraf banned me only on TV, not in the newspaper. Now my friend Imran Khan is PM and I am banned from TV as well as in newspapers. I must say thanks to my enemy Musharraf because he never banned me in the newspaper.

Your critics accuse you of being partisan in your reporting and commentary on Pakistani politics. How would you respond to them?

If I am partisan, then why did Imran Khan call me as a witness in the inquiry commission against rigging in the 2013 elections? I told you I lost jobs when Bhutto and Sharif were in power, I was banned when Musharraf was in power and I am banned when Imran Khan is now in power. I believe in objectivity not neutrality. 

A journalist in Pakistan cannot remain neutral between democracy and dictatorship. We have to stand by democracy. We cannot remain neutral between law and lawlessness. If someone is breaking the law and attacking journalists we have to criticise him. We can't remain silent in the name of national interest or neutrality.

Some observers say Pakistani media is more critical of the state than Indian media. How much would you agree with this assessment and what role do you think the media plays in nation building?

There are many similarities and there are differences between the situation in India and Pakistan. Modi and Imran Khan were the beneficiaries of free media when they were in opposition. Now the media is under pressure when they are in power. Pakistani journalists are more aggressive because we have faced four dictatorships. Journalists were part of the movements for the restoration of democracy. Our current secretary general of PFUJ Nasir Zaidi was flogged by General Zia in 1978. He is a source of inspiration for young journalists. We still respect him due to his struggle for democracy.

India faced only one emergency and the late Kuldeep Nayyer once told me that when he was arrested the Indian journalist community never stood by him. Pakistan is different. Here the majority of my colleagues and human rights bodies are standing with me and want to fight for me. The general public is showing solidarity with me. Wherever I go people start selfies and they show anger against Imran Khan and security agencies. It's a matter of pride as well as a matter of great concern.

 Other than curbs and threats by state, what are the other challenges for journalists and media in Pakistan?

More than 8,000 journalists lost jobs in Pakistan in the last five years due to the economic crunch. We need to think about our economic models as well as professional competence. Good journalism is good business. If you will open a TV channel or newspaper to protect your business interest then you will destroy journalism. We need to get rid of non-professionals.

India and Pakistan are free countries now and yet both still carry the colonial legacy of the sedition law—124-A of the penal code—and observers say it is used to crack down on free speech. How would you draw the comparisons between how the two countries deal with dissent? 

Look at section 124-A of the penal code in India and Pakistan. It was introduced by the British colonial raj in united India. Now we are divided in three countries, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. All these three South Asian countries claimed to be democracies but in all 124-A is being used to suppress dissent. British parliament abolished this colonial law in 2009 but we are making laws  worse than 124-A. We need to resist the colonial mindset ruling us in the name of democracy. 

I am very optimistic. A national lawyers convention on 17 June in Islamabad gave me a lot of hope. Then I was called by the Human Rights Committee of the National Assembly which is headed by Bilawal Bhutto Zardari. Asad Ali Toor and many other journalists were also there to tell our painful stories to the committee. Parliamentarians from government and opposition expressed solidarity with us. At least they listened to us. Imran Khan is not listening but someone somewhere is listening to us. I am sure we will defeat colonial mindset like Gandhi and like Muhammad Ali Jinnah did.

Can you give us a picture of the history of how authorities have used  sedition law in Pakistan. 

Sedition law was used against famous poet Faiz Ahmad Faiz, Habib Jalib. It was used against A K Fazlul Haq who presented the Pakistan resolution on 23 March 1940 as PM of United Bengal. Sedition law was used against former PMs Hussain Shaheed Suharwardy, Bhutto, Sharif and former President Asid Ali Zardari. These days the same law is being used against many journalists and academics in Pakistan. 

You write in your WaPo piece, "And in Pakistan, an attempt to finally rid us of the law was defeated last year by Prime Minister Imran Khan’s government in Parliament." Can you elaborate? What explains why this government wants sedition law to continue when rights activists say it has no place in a free country?

Last year former Chairman Senate and former minister Senator Raza Rabbani from Pakistan People’s Party tabled a bill in the upper house of the Parliament to get rid of section 124-A. Minister for parliamentary affairs Ali Muhammad Khan of the ruling Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf opposed that bill. There was no debate in the Parliament after that. Few days later two members of the lower house namely Ali Wazir and Mian Javed Latif were booked under the same law and they were arrested. Mian Javed Latif was released on bail but Ali Wazir is still behind bars. Both were from opposition. 

It was proved that the government of Imran Khan is consciously using this colonial law against its political opponents. This law is a sword in the hands of powerful people and they try to use this sword ruthlessly to silence the voices of dissent.

We often get to hear one term 'hybrid regime' which is used to explain the current rule in Pakistan. Why does this term come up  when you have a democratically elected government? Since 2009 the country has regularly seen elections. How much has Pakistan's democracy progressed since then and what does the future hold for Pakistan?

According to the Democracy Index compiled by the Economic Intelligence Unit, Pakistan is a hybrid regime and India is included in flawed democracies. Hybrid regimes combine autocratic features in the name of democracy. I am living evidence of a hybrid regime. Wazir is sitting behind bars in a sedition case. He only delivered a speech like me. He is evidence of a hybrid regime. Khawaja Asif and Khurshid Shah are former federal ministers, they are sitting members of parliament thrown in jails but the speaker of national assembly will not issue orders for their participation in assembly proceedings because we are living in a hybrid regime. 

Thank God we are not authoritarian regimes but we are moving towards authoritarianism very fast. We need to stop all those who are pushing our countries towards authoritarianism.

 

(Zafar Aafaq is a journalist based in New Delhi.)

https://article-14.com/post/india-pakistan-govts-united-in-illegally-using-sedition-law-despite-court-warnings-60e51a3784627