Our Announcements

Not Found

Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here.

Posts Tagged Kashmir

Ex-RAW Chief’s Pragmatic Approach on Kashmir By Sajjad Shaukat

imgresEx-RAW Chief’s Pragmatic Approach on Kashmir

By

Sajjad Shaukat

 

In wake of continued siege and prolonged curfew, Indian security forces have martyred more than 100 innocent persons who have been protesting since July 8, 2016 against the martyrdom of the young Kashmir leader Burhan Wani by the Indian security forces in the Indian-occupied Kashmir.

 

Without caring for severe criticism all over the world, during his address on the Independence Day of India on August 15, 2016, Indian extremist Prime Minister Narendra Modi who is also leader of the ruling fundamentalist party BJP went aggressively further in a diatribe against Pakistan by claiming that people of Gilgit-Baltistan, Azad Jammu and Kashmir are thankful to home for raising voice for their suppressed rights.

 

On the other side, against his false anti-Pakistan statement, huge rallies and demonstrations were held in Balochistan, Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan, including some other cities of Pakistan. Opposing Indian intervention in Balochistan and other parts of Pakistan, the speakers on this occasion strongly condemned Prime Minister Modi’s aggressive designs against Pakistan and Kashmiris. They urged international community, civilized world and human rights organizations to take serious notice of the Indian state terrorism—genocide of Kashmiris in the Indian-held Kashmir and interference in Pakistan’s province of Balochistan.

 

In this context, Pakistan Prime Minister’s Adviser on Foreign Affairs Sartaj Aziz said that the situation in Balochistan cannot be equated with Kashmir and Indian Prime Minister was only trying to divert world attention from the “grim tragedy” unfolding in Kashmir over the past five weeks.

 

One can clearly not that Indian-controlled Kashmir (IOK) is burning since July 8, 2016. The lava of resentment from the bursting volcano of IOK is now spreading from the urban centers to rural areas. Indian rulers have been trying to brush aside the issue by keeping it under the carpet, accusing that Pakistan is fuelling the flames.

 

At this critical juncture, the interview of A. S. Dulat, former chief of India’s spy agency RAW published in the magazine, ‘The Wire’ of August 27, 2016 sheds some light on finding a settlement of the Kashmir dispute. A.S. Dulat is relevant to the issue and helps in understanding the crisis in Kashmir and seeking possible solutions. Dulat who also was director of the Intelligence Bureau, has served in Kashmir for a long time. His most important tenure was between 2001 and 2004, when he was the advisor on Jammu and Kashmir in Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s office. In 2015, his book Kashmir, The Vajpayee Years, co-authored with senior journalist Aditya Sinha, created uproar since he became one of the few members of the Indian security and intelligence community to advocate a reduced military presence in Kashmir and to argue the need for India to build confidence amongst Kashmiris through humanitarian measures.

 

Dulat, while emphasizing that Pakistan’s role is not the only catalyst for the crisis, talks about the need for the Indian government to start talking to separatist leaders in the Hurriyat Conference, Pakistan, and other important political players. He indicates as to how Vajpayee’s and Narendra Modi’s strategies on Kashmir are poles apart and elaborates on why Kashmiris warmed to Vajpayee. He stresses that India should engage in principled dialogue with people in the Valley, instead of taking a naïve and aggressive line. His condemnation of the Modi government for not talking to Hurriyat and for its high handedness in IOK is spot on. He rightly concludes that the Kashmiri uprising is 100% indigenous and Pakistan was taking advantage of the situation in IOK.

 

However, realistic analysis of A.S. Dulat shows his pragmatic approach regarding the Indian-occupied Kashmir, as he points out that the problem has been there for a while. Under the surface, there has been a lot of anger, hatred and alienation. Never before has it seemed so much in the open. In this context, He said, “Now, you have slogans put up: ‘Indian Dogs Go Back!’ It’s bad and the common Kashmiri is suffering.” He attributes all this, unfortunately, to the BJP-PDP alliance in the Indian-controlled Kashmir. In the 2014 elections, the result was such that this was the only alliance which could work. It was a natural alliance and [PDP leader] Mufti Mohammed Sayeed, therefore, opted for it although he stated that it was an alliance between the North Pole and the South Pole. Everyone hoped that it would bring Jammu and Kashmir together.

 

In fact, it has torn Jammu and Kashmir apart, because the Kashmiris have been very apprehensive that the BJP and the RSS are gradually penetrating into the Valley. They are very sensitive to that because with that comes fears of the repeal of Article 370, that there may be a change in the demographic pattern of Kashmir and so on. So as long as Mufti Sayeed was there, he muddled through. He was an unhappy man because Delhi did not understand what was happening. So he died an unhappy man.

 

As war of liberation in the Indian-held Kashmir has accelerated, Indian Prime Minster Modi has no option, but resuming the dialogue process with Pakistan, starting where Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh left it. Modi’s diversionary tactics, drawing the attention off IOK and talking about Balochistan would not help as the problem lies in Kashmir and New Delhi will have to talk to Islamabad.

 

In this regard, another news item reported in various news papers is the speech given by Bahujan Samaj Party chief Mayawati in Azam Garh, Utter Pradesh. In her speech she has said that BJP may start a war with Pakistan and engineer Hindu-Muslim riots prior to the upcoming polls in utter Pradesh. She has predicted that BJP will use these tactics to divert attention from its failing government policies. Mayawati’s predictions merit attention because BJP is an irrational party, which comprises extremists, who can go to any extent to achieve their gains. Modi, who ignited Gujarat and is responsible for the slaughter of 2000 innocent Muslims in 2002, only because he was seeking re-elections in the province, can well take India to war so that the elections in UP may be won.

 

Nevertheless, Indian rulers must take cognizance of the interview of the ex-chief of RAW A. S. Dulat in order to seek a peaceful solution of the Kashmir dispute, as he has shown a pragmatic approach on Kashmir.

 

 

, ,

No Comments

Quaid’s Vision on Kashmir Issue and Prevailing Situation

Round Table Discussion on 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quaid’s Vision on Kashmir Issue and Prevailing Situation 

Organized by
MUSLIM Institute

MUSLIM Institute organized a round table discussion on “Quaid’s Vision on Kashmir Issue and Prevailing Situation” at National library, Islamabad. Eminent scholars and political leaders from Pakistan participated in the discussion and expressed their views on the subject. Convener Tehreek-e-Hurriyat Jammu & Kashmir, Pakistan Chapter, Ghulam Muhammad Safi, Former Ambassador & Renowned Columnist Asif Ezdi, Renowned Columnist, Ms. Ayesha Masood and Research Associate MUSLIM Institute Mr. Tahir Mehmood, and others spoke on the event.

img

Honorable Speakers expressing their views observed as under:

Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah believed that without Kashmir, Pakistan is incomplete. He tried his best to liberate Kashmir from Indian illegal occupation. Quaid’s commitment with Kashmir and Kashmiri people was unfaltering. Quaid’s vision on Kashmir is unequivocal. Quaid knew very well the importance and significance of Kashmir for Pakistanis as well as for Kashmiris. He paid attention to the miserable conditions of Kashmiris even when there
According to Dr. Riaz Ali Shah’s diary, Quaid-e-Azam said, during his illness in Ziarat, “Kashmir is the Jugular vein of Pakistan and no nation or country would tolerate its Jugular vein remains under the sword of the enemy”. Not only the Jugular vein of Pakistan but also that of Kashmiri community in particular has been under the sword of the enemy for the last sixty eight years. Quaid-e-Azam’s interest in Kashmir is evident from the fact that he explained the significance of the name of Pakistan to Mountbatten on May 17, 1947 as “The derivation of the word Pakistan– P for Punjab; A for Afghan (i.e. Pathans of NWFP); K for Kashmir; I for nothing because that letter was not in the word in Urdu; S for Sindh and Tan for the last syllable of Baluchistan”. was no one to heed their hues and cries. Quaid vociferously condemned the Indian aggression on Kashmir. He wanted the peaceful settlement of the dispute but he was also determined to go to any extent to liberate Kashmir from Indian clutches, which is evident from his bold step to issue orders to the then Commander-in-Chief of Pakistan Army, General Douglas Gracey to dispatch troops to Jammu and Srinagar. 

img

Quaid-e-Azam supported the Kashmir cause even before the independence of Pakistan. It was his desire that Kashmiris especially Muslims should get their socio economic rights and justice. During the period of Dogra Raj in Kashmir Muslims were dealt in very cruel manner, women were treated like herd of animals. In 1926 when Quaid visited Kashmir he came to know that Kashmiri Muslim sent a delegation to the then viceroy and submitted a memorandum to take notice of the miseries of Kashmiri people. That delegation when returned they were tortured, their lands were snatched. When Quaid came back, a unanimous resolution was passed in the meeting of Muslim League at Lahore, which addressed maharaja to take care of the educational and economic rights of the Muslims. Allama Iqbal was also on the same footings as Quaid, taking notice of the maltreatment of Kashmiris, in 1931 president of Muslim League Allama Iqbal declared that Muslims of Sub continent should observe 14 August as the Kashmir day. 

Quaid’s three visits to Kashmir show that he had deep interest in Kashmir and its politics. Regarding Srinagar visit of the Quaid-e-Azam in 1944, Alastair Lamb says ”M.A. Jinnah, unlike Jawaharlal Nehru was extremely reluctant at this period of time to involve himself directly (or the Muslim League which he headed) in the internal affairs of the Princely State; such action would in his eyes have been constitutionally improper.

img

Quaid-e-Azam never took stand on any such issue which was unrealistic. When a leader after long experiences takes a decision, then such decisions are ideologically very strong. Quaid e Azam after long period of time took firm decision on Kashmir. As Quaid took resolute decision on the mission of Pakistan and then translated it into actuation and finally achieved his goal. After Quaid-e-Azam we can’t see any such sort of commitment in case of Kashmir. 

India was very particular to grab Jammu and Kashmir. ‘Two-Nation Theory’ is the basis of the Ideology of Pakistan but Indian Hindu leaders tried their best to negate it. They also tried to influence Quaid-e-Azam so that he may leave his stand on ‘Two-Nation Theory’ but Quaid remain rock-like on his stance. Therefore in a bid of disapproving ‘Two-Nation Theory’ India occupied Jammu and Kashmir by force as Jammu and Kashmir was Muslim majority state contiguous to Pakistan. People of Kashmir knew very well the importance of ‘Two-Nation Theory’ and are committed to it till date. Quaid cautioned Sheikh Abdullah of Kashmir that he is playing in the hands of congress and he would regret one day and the time proved Quaid’s words. India kept ill-treating Kashmiri people and sheikh Abdullah was also not rewarded for his services. Kashmiri leaders believe that sheikh Abdullah’s lust of power exacerbated the Kashmir issue. 

Quaid was man of principles. He succeeded because of his commitment and unwavering belief in mission of Pakistan and today we need same commitment and determination. Deviation from Quaid’s vision will be extremely detrimental to stability of Pakistan if Kashmir don’t integrate with Pakistan then Pakistan will have to face grave challenges in future.

img

Pakistani leadership should remain steadfast on its just and long held stance that Kashmiris should be given right of self-determination. Without resolving outstanding issue of Kashmir, peace and prosperity in south Asia could not be achieved. Our policy makers need to follow the Quaid’s vision on Kashmir. Pakistan should always give priority to the Kashmir issue in any dialogue process with India. On the basis of Quaid’s vision on Kashmir, today we also need to design a concrete national policy on Kashmir and successive governments should follow it consistently. The current government should take firm stand and boldly express its principle stance on every forum as Quaid did in his life to defend two nation theory and Kashmir issue.

India has eroded all the state nomenclature (independent institution) of Jammu & Kashmir to bring it at par with other Indian states and to remove its special status. India wants to settle the Hindu migrants in Jammu & Kashmir to change its demography to dilute the Muslim majority status; therefore Pakistan should raise voice against this blatant violation of Justice and fair play.

Interactive Session

img

After speakers expressed their views, interactive session was held and speakers answered various questions in detail. Gist of the same has been given as what follows:

Kashmir issue is not an issue of territory but the right of self-determination of people of Jammu and Kashmir. It is not merely an issue of brutalizing Kashmiri people though this problem is a part of Kashmir issue. Still if India stops brutalizing the people of Kashmir, political issue of independence remains unresolved. Including the above mentioned points, a national policy should be formulated and tabled in the cabinet. Approval of the cabinet is mandatory thus it may become a guiding principle and nobody shall have the right to deviate from it. As whoever comes to power, disregard previous policies and tries to evolve new strategies. Same is the case with the policy of Kashmir.

We should fearlessly express our support to the struggle of people of Kashmir. Emphasis on the fallacy that Hindu and Muslim has been living together in harmony thus ‘Two-Nation Theory’ has no ground, is not a reality. Thus, implications of tempering the history may be disastrous and it is obligation upon all of us to raise our voice against this. Actually, a tiny section which is promoting this misconception is well-financed and supported by foreign powers. They don’t highlight the British rule, that how British engineered the minds of Hindus to eliminate Muslims from subcontinent. There are two types of India: one before the imperialist British rule and one after that; in former Muslims and Hindus could live together but in the latter one it was made impossible. Narendra Modi is the living example of such kind of mentality. 

Indian forces entered the Kashmir before the maharaja of Kashmir signed the instrument of accession. India states that instrument of accession was signed on 26th October and the Indian forces attacked Kashmir on 27th October, but evidence is contrary to this. However, the Kashmir issue has surpassed these technicalities and right of self-determination is the talk of the time. The relevant issues are resolutions of Security Council to which both countries agreed, though India is using delaying tactics for the implementation of these resolutions. Right of self-determination is ratified through the resolutions of the Security Council. Even if resolutions were not conferring the right of self-determination, people of Kashmir still hold this right as it is stipulated in international laws that “all people” have the right of self-determination.

, , ,

No Comments

India’s Unrealistic Counterinsurgency Strategy By Sajjad Shaukat

 

 

 
Image result for india secessionist movements Flags
Image result for india secessionist movements Flags
 
 
 
Image result for india secessionist movements Flags

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

India’s Unrealistic Counterinsurgency Strategy

 

By Sajjad Shaukat

 

 

Learning no lesson from the past, and depending upon state terrorism, Indian Central Government has finalized the raising of Indian Reserve Police Battalions (IRBPs) in Indian Occupied Kashmir (IOK) and Naxal/Maoist hit states or Left Wing Extremism (LWE) areas, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. Out of the total 25 IRBPs proposed, five will be for IOK and 12 for LWE affected states whereas rest of 8, IRBPs for other states.

 

These battalions will be raised by recruiting local youths. In case of Naxal hit states, 75 per cent vacancies will be filled up by youths from the 27 worst-affected districts. In IOK, the recruitment process will concentrate on insurgency prone areas.

 

At present, there are 144 IRPBs in various states. In addition, Central Government has recently approved raising of eight additional IRBPs, four each of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana.

 

The cost of raising each of the battalion will be around Indian Rupee, 61 crore and 75 per cent of it will be provided by the Central Government. This cost is much lower than raising of a paramilitary battalion which costs around Rs. 160 crore.

 

Personnel of IRBPs are normally deployed in their respective states, but they can be deployed in other states too, if there is a requirement. The current raising is outcome of demand by respective states government in wake of the ever growing/persistence insurgency and freedom struggle.

 

Within a span of approximately six months, Central Government of India has approved the demand which reflects the surge of militants/insurgent activities in the LWE hit states/ IOK. It also highlights the manifestation of focus to curb militancy and raise the force level to meet the challenges, which have been repeatedly expressed by Indian Home Minister Rajnath Singh and National Security Adviser Ajit Doval.

 

Minister of Home Affairs Rajnath Singh has also repeatedly highlighted his focus to build the capacity of security forces engaged in fighting insurgency. The mentioned increase is a part of overall drive against Naxal/Maoist hit states and IOK.

 

Off late the insurgent/militant activities in LWE and IOK regions have seen a significant surge whereby Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) and Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) have suffered causalities. Therefore, immediate attention has been paid towards the new strategy.

 

While, despite concerted efforts—capacity, capability, weapons, equipments and training, the Indian security forces could not effectively counter/reduce the insurgent activities in these states.

The recent surge of insurgents/militant activities in the Nexal affected states of India has compelled the Central Government to enhance counter insurgency efforts in other parts as well. Therefore, the Home Ministry has given a go ahead for not only raising the additional battalions, but also pursuing the support of helicopters/UAVs to cover/ assist the security forces engaged in anti-Naxal/Maoist activities in the affected states.

It is mentionable that under the mask of democracy and secularism, Indian subsequent regimes dominated by politicians from the Hindi heartland—Hindutva (Hindu nationalism), used brutal force ruthlessly against any move to free Assam, Kashmir, Khalistan, Mizoram, Nagaland, Tamil Nadu and Tripura where wars of liberation continue in one or the other form. In the recent years, Maoist intensified their struggle, attacking official installments. In this context, Indian media admitted that Maoists have entered the cities, expanding their activities against the Indian union. While, even under the rule of Congress which claims to be secular party, Indian extremist parties like BJP, RSS, VHP, Shev Sina and Bajrang Dal have missed no opportunity to communalize national politics of India. They also intensified anti-Christian and anti-Muslim bloodshed.

 

After serving the BJP for 30 years, Jaswant Singh was expelled from the party for praising Mohammad Ali Jinnah and echoing the pain of the Indian Muslims in his book, “Jinnah: India, Partition, Independence.” While pointing out the BJP’s attitude towards the minorities, Singh wrote: “Every Muslim that lives in India is a loyal Indian…look into the eyes of Indian Muslims and see the pain.” He warned in his book, if such a policy continued, “India could have third partition.”

 

Past and present history of Balkan gives ample evidence that insurgency and movement of separatism in one country have drastic impact on other neighbouring states. Similarly, civil war and unrest either in Somalia or Sudan have affected all the states of Darfur region, while violent uprising in Egypt, Syria etc. has radicalized a number of the Middle East countries. Indian state terrorism in the Indian-held Kashmir will further radicalize India, giving a impetus to separatist movements in other regions of India.

 

It is noteworthy that currently, more than half of India’s budget is allocated for armed forces, and defence purchases, leaving even less to lift millions of its citizens from abject poverty. Hence, various injustices have further accelerated regional and ethnic disparities in India, particularly, under the Modi government.

 

It is worth-mentioning that the one of the important causes of the disintegration of the former Soviet Union was that its greater defence expenditure exceeded to the maximum, resulting into economic crises inside the country. In this regard, about a prolonged war in Afghanistan, the former President Gorbachev had declared it as the “bleeding wound.” However, militarization of the Soviet Union failed in controlling the movements of liberation, launched by various ethnic nationalities. On the other hand, while learning no lesson from India’s previous close friend, Indian fundamentalist Prime Minister Narendra Modi of the BJP extremist party is acting upon the similar policies.

 

At present, undoubtedly, India is witnessing increased incidents of violence and killings related to communal violence and insurgencies. Nevertheless, such incidents project security weaknesses and failures of the Indian government in curbing insurgent tendencies and problems of the public.

 

While, Indian government is raising Reserve Police Battalions to continue state terrorism, and on the parallel axes, announcement of rehabilitation schemes, development projects and incentives for surrender have been implemented to cope with the insurgency and uprising. It shows contradictory policy of New Delhi.

 

Instead of redressing the grievances of the Maoists by eliminating injustices against them and the Kashmiris by granting them their legitimate right of liberation, Indian government is again acting upon brutal force to suppress these movements through force. Therefore, India’s unrealistic counterinsurgency Strategy will badly fail, culminating into political suicide of the India union.

Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations

 

Email: sajjad_logic@yahoo.com

 

 

 

, , , , , , ,

No Comments

Pakistan – How Did It All Go Wrong? (Part II)

 

OPINION

 

 

Pakistan – How Did It All Go Wrong ? (Part II)

Mohammad Soukat Ali
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

General Ayub Khan showed some initial progress, which even the people of East Pakistan appreciated. But the novelty of martial law did not last long and predictably became corrupted by vested interests.  He was President of Pakistan for most of the 1960s, but by the end of the decade, popular resentment had boiled over against him. Pakistan had fallen into a state of disarray, and on 25 March 1969 he handed over power to General Yahya Khan. In his first nationwide address, Yahya Khan re-imposed martial law, and ordered everybody to maintain law and order. Soon he set up a framework for elections that were held in December 1970. InEast Pakistan, the Awami League (led by SK. Mujibur Rahman) held almost all the seats, but none in West Pakistan. In West Pakistan, the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP led by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto) won the lion’s share of the seats, but none in East Pakistan. SK Mujib won 162 seats in the National Assembly and Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s Party mastered only 88. When Bhutto refused to concede the leadership of Pakistan to Mujib, to resolve the impasse he proposed the ‘six-point formula’, but it was not acceptable either to Bhutto or to the people of West Pakistan. The six-point formula would have safeguarded several key rights of the Bengali people who may have gone on to remain in Pakistan.

 

The Bengali public did not forget the incident of 1952 when they had to pay in blood to retain their mother tongue Bengali. I had the opportunity to talk to Mujib in a gathering of Bengali Diaspora in Bayswater, when he was in London in 1969. He described how senior civil servants at the centre regularly flouted his orders or instructions by refusing to carry them out, when he became a minister under the Suhrawardy Government. It is reported in several sources that when Mujib was in London he secretly held talks with Indian diplomats about the separation of Bangladesh from Pakistan.

 

After the six-point formula failed, on March 7, 1971, Mujib asked the people to launch a major campaign of civil disobedience, and organised armed resistance at a mass gathering of people at the Race Course Ground in Dhaka; this was a de-facto declaration of Independence. Mujib was arrested by the military governor and transported to West Pakistan and imprisoned. Army clampdown, arrests, rampant murderous attacks on Bengalis, rape of Bengali women by Pakistani soldiers led to the emigration of millions of ordinary people, both Hindus and Muslims to India. Mujib’s deputies of the Awami League set up a government in exile in India. India exploited this golden opportunity by arming the freedom fighters and creating conditions which led to the 1971 Indo-Pak war. Pakistan was badly defeated. The generals of Pakistan had to suffer the ignominy of surrendering to the Indian generals who were their friends and colleagues in the days when they were in the British Army together. The exiled Awami league leadership and most of the refugees returned to East Bengal which they called the Independent state of Bangladesh. Later many non-Bengalis suffered torture and murder at the hands of Nationalistic Bengalis who had the chance to take revenge.

General Yahya Khan became the highest-ranking casualty of the war. To forestall the ensuing unrest in Pakistan on 20 December 1971, he handed over power to ambitious and mercurial Mr.Bhutto, age 43, who became the Prime Minister. In July 1972, Bhutto had to go to India, sign the Simla Agreement drawn up by India, to recover 93,000 prisoners of war and 5,000 square miles of territory captured by India. He strengthened ties with China and Saudi Arabia, and recognised Bangladesh. He also released Mujib who became known as Desh-Bandhu, Friend of the Nation of Bangladesh. Bhutto ran the country until 1977 by winning the parliamentary election of that year. However, the opposition alleged widespread vote rigging, and violence escalated across the country. On 5 July 1977, in a bloodless coup Bhutto was deposed by his appointed army chief General Zia-ul-Haq; he was controversially tried on murder charges and was executed in 1979 by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Zia ul-Haq ran his martial law administration until August 1988 when he himself was killed in a helicopter crash. The American Ambassador to Pakistan Arnold Lewis Raphael and General Herbert M. Wassom, the head of the U.S. Military aid mission to Pakistan, were also killed in the same crash. After Bhutto’s  death his daughter Benazir was elected as the 11th Prime Minister of Pakistan which lasted from November 1988 to October 1990. But when Benazir was dismissed by President Ghulam Ishaq Khan in 1990 on corruption charges, Nawaz Sharif secured the nomination. He successfully campaigned for the office of Prime Minister. Nawaz Sharif, a right-wing conservative politician, served as the 12th Prime Minister of Pakistan from November 1990 to July 1993.

Benazir served again as PM from 1993 until her final dismissal on November 1996 and was again removed from the post by President Farooq Leghari on corruption charges in which her husband Asif Ali Zardari was also deeply implicated. Nawaz Sharif became Prime Minister again from February 1997. On 12 October 1999 he attempted to remove Musharraf from the post of Chief of Army, but was out manoeuvred by the crafty Army Chief Musharraf. Sharif was exiled to Saudi Arabia. Under US pressure Musharraf became involved in the war with the Talibans; this has brought all sorts of trouble causing the catastrophic condition Pakistan now finds herself in. Gradually he himself became so unpopular that he could not continue to stay in power.

Hostility towards Musharraf increased from all quarters. Under pressure he agreed to restore democracy. Bhutto, her husband Zardari and Sharif all returned home to take part in the election. Bhutto was killed in a bomb-blast during an election campaign on 27 December 2007 by whom no one knows. Her husband Asif Ali Zardari inherited the leadership of the People’s Party. He and Sharif of the Muslim League Party ran an interim coalition government but by skilful political manoeuvre and dominance of the PPP consolidated his power and became the President on September 2008. Musharraf was compelled to resign previously. Sharif was gradually sidelined by Zardari as he managed to exercise power with the help of the Prime Minister Gillani. In the 2013 general election Sharif became Prime Minister for the third time. Because of the continued Taliban/Al- Qaeda problems and regular drone strikes by the Americans he has been finding it very difficult to run the country with full authority and ease.

Failure of foreign policy

Since independence Pakistan has been following suicidal foreign policies. Pakistani politicians gave the impression that they were cleverer and smarter than the Indians. By becoming members of strong international alliances such as CENTO and SEATO they felt secure from attacks by foreign powers, particularly India. Alas! During the many wars with India, Pakistan never received any direct help from its allies. That frustration made her angrier towards the Indians and anti-Indian terrorist activity increased further.

I realised later what the well-attired gentleman in his forties, mentioned in the second paragraph of Part I of this essay, implied. The US and not India is the cause of Pakistan’s misfortunes. Pakistan is now a sport, a tool, a useful ally whom the US in her own interest employs willy-nilly when she needs, and discards each time once her purpose is achieved, leaving Pakistan in a worse situation than before. Due to lack of any foresight and/or desperate need of aid Pakistan has embroiled herself twice in an Afghan war, once during the Russian invasion and later during the current American fight with the Taliban. “A leading US expert on South Asia said the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) worked in tandem with Pakistan to create the “monster” that is today Afghanistan’s ruling Taliban”. They were friends of the Pakistanis until the US compelled them to fight their friends.

Recent drone attacks on Pakistani territories killing ordinary men, women and children show utter helplessness on her part and erosion of her sovereignty. As if she is a prey in the paws of a wild animal. The results have been catastrophic creating the dismal lawlessness, economic hardship, inability to employ resources to civilian works and the dire condition they find themselves in now. These two wars have caused Pakistan untold social, political and economic destruction from which rebuilding the country will be a long, painstaking and at times seemingly impossible process. The bipartisan foreign policy to satisfy the two enemies, the US and the Al-Qaeda/Taleban ally, has been disastrous for Pakistan. Will the toxic mixture of Al-Qaeda and Taliban be the Sword of Damocles for Pakistan which she cannot escape?

Pakistan – Is this A Civilian State or A Business Run By Junta?

The future of Pakistan depends to a large extent on the answer to this question. It is clear that since the junta became involved in the politics of Pakistan they have become so dominant that civilian governments could only run if they had their blessing. Most of the foreign aids, mainly from the US, are channeled through the military that enjoyed the lion’s share. It is also clear that the US prefers the military rulers who can serve their interests when they are bribed in the guise of aids. This is a clear hypocrisy on the part of the Americans who always talk about democracy, human right etc.

Incompetent and weak civilian governments did not have the chance to be replaced by other elected civilian governments because of the interventions of the junta. When one compares the situation with India (the only comparison I have made with India), people outside the country hardly know the names of the chiefs of Indian army, air force or the navy. India had many bad governments but they have always been replaced by another elected government. No junta intervened to threaten the democratic governments in India. Most of the Pakistan’s wars with India have always been instigated by the junta.

Rivalry with India

I am aware that Pakistan has a good reason to bear a grudge against India. This is because she could not inherit or capture Kashmir in its entirety. But the jealousy harboured by the leaders of Pakistan created their shortsightedness. So they fought several wars with the Indians under one pretext or another. Pakistan came second best every time losing face and causing economic hardship for her people. There have been several terrorist attacks against India originating in Pakistan. The1971 war with India and the inability to offer democratic rights to the people of East Pakistan proved the shortsightedness of the leaders of Pakistan. This had been evidenced time and again previously. The ignominy suffered by Bhutto and the military hegemony diminished the image of Pakistan further. Jingoism inevitably permeated among the populace as a result – hatred and contempt for India kept on increasing among the unsuspecting masses. It makes me wonder if these people are the progenies of the sturdy and heavily builtperson in his fifties pouring scorn and venom towards the Indians.

This has also badly damaged the relationship between these two countries whose common cultural heritage is deep rooted. I felt very sad when the film “Postcards from Pakistan” was shown in the evening of 26 November 2012 at the Pakistan High Commission. They were fragments of the heritage of the bygone Muslim Era. I felt sad because most of the Pakistanis present there had no idea what Muslim heritage they left in India from which they are permanently deprived of and how others are taking care of them and reaping the benefits by publicising them abroad as Indian heritage.

 

Mohammad Soukat Ali was educated in the sciences and embarked upon a career in agricultural economics in West Bengal, India, before working in the UK civil service. He writes articles and essays on Islamic reform and history.


, ,

No Comments

Five Reasons Why India Can’t ‘Do A Gaza’ On Pakistan

Five Reasons Why India Can’t ‘Do A Gaza’ On Pakistan

 

 

Over the last week, many Americans (and not a few Indians) have asked me why India does not “do a Gaza” on Pakistan, referring, of course, to an emulation of Israel’s punitive use of force against Hamas-run Palestine, a territory from which rockets rain down on Israeli soil with reliable frequency (if not reliable destructiveness … but that is not for want of Hamas intent).

My answer, given with the heavy heart that comes always with a painful grip on reality, is simple: India does not because it cannot.

Here are five reasons why:

1. India is not a military goliath in relation to Pakistan in the way Israel is to the Palestinian territories. India does not have the immunity, the confidence and the military free hand that result from an overwhelming military superiority over an opponent. Israel’s foe is a non-sovereign entity that enjoys the most precarious form of self-governance. Pakistan, for all its dysfunction, is a proper country with a proper army, superior by far to the tin-pot Arab forces that Israel has had to combat over time. Pakistan has nukes, to boot. Any assault on Pakistani territory carries with it an apocalyptic risk for India. This is, in fact, Pakistan’s trump card. (This explains, also, why Israel is determined to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran.)

2. Even if India could attack Pakistan without fear of nuclear retaliation, the rationale for “doing a Gaza” is, arguably, not fully present: Israel had been attacked consistently by the very force–Hamas–that was in political control of the territory from which the attacks occurred. By contrast, terrorist attacks on India, while originating in Pakistan, are not authored by the Pakistani government. India can– and does–contend that Pakistan’s government should shut down the terrorist training camps on Pakistani soil. (In this insistence, India has unequivocal support from Washington.) Yet only a consistent and demonstrable pattern of dereliction by Pakistani authorities– which would need to be dereliction verging on complicity with the terrorists–would furnish India with sufficient grounds to hold the Pakistani state culpable.

3. As our columnist, Karlyn Bowman, writes, Israel enjoys impressive support from the American people, in contrast to the Palestinians. No other state–apart, perhaps, from Britain–evokes as much favor in American public opinion as does Israel. This is not merely the result of the much-vaunted “Israel lobby” (to use a label deployed by its detractors), but also because of the very real depth of cultural interpenetration between American and Israeli society. This fraternal feeling buys Israel an enviable immunity in the conduct of its strategic defense. India, by contrast–while considerably more admired and favored in American public opinion than Pakistan–enjoys scarcely a fraction of Israel’s “pull” in Washington when it comes to questions of the use of force beyond its borders.

4. Pakistan is strategically significant to the United States; the Palestinians are not. This gives Washington scant incentive to rein in the Israelis, but a major incentive to rein in any Indian impulse to strike at Pakistan. However justified the Indian anger against Pakistan over the recent invasion of Mumbai by Pakistani terrorists, the last thing that the U.S. wants right now is an attack–no matter how surgical–by India against Pakistan-based terror camps. This would almost certainly result in a wholesale shift of Pakistani troops away from their western, Afghan front toward the eastern boundary with India–and would leave the American Afghan campaign in some considerable disarray, at least in the short term. So Washington has asked for, and received, the gift of Indian patience. And although India recognizes that it is not wholly without options to mobilize quickly for punitive, surgical strikes in a “strategic space,” it would–right now–settle for a trial of the accused terrorist leaders in U.S. courts.

5. My last, and meta-, point: Israel has the privilege of an international pariah to ignore international public opinion in its use of force against the Palestinians. A state with which few others have diplomatic relations can turn the tables on those that would anathematize it by saying, Hang diplomacy. India, by contrast, has no such luxury. It is a prisoner of its own global aspirations–and pretensions.

Tunku Varadarajan, a professor at the Stern Business School at NYU and research fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution, is opinions editor at Forbes.com, where he writes a weekly column.

, , , , , , , ,

No Comments