On 14thFebruary 2019, Pulwama district of Indian occupied Kashmir witnessed a deadly suicide attack killing 40 CRPF soldiers and numerous injured. The attack was most dreadful after the Mumbai attacks of 2008 which left 195 peoples dead. Right after the attack, India followed the traditional culture of blame game and once again accused Pakistan for planning and executing the deadly attack and announced to retaliate with strong force. India claims that Pakistan is a nerve center of terrorism and New Delhi will not tolerate any infiltration made by Islamabad. The Indian authorities made announcement to damage Pakistan politically and economically. In such a move, Water Resources Minister Nitin Gadkari announced that his government has decided to stop the flow of its share of water to Pakistan from rivers under the Indus Water Treaty. The Indian decision is a serious violation of the treaty signed back in 1960. Indian Union Minister for External Affairs General VK Singh pointed out that after concerted diplomatic efforts, Pakistan has been isolated internationally. He claimed that more than 40 countries condemned the heinous attack in Pulwama. He further goes on highlighting Indian retaliatory plans by referencing that India will choose time and place on its own for retribution.
However, Pakistan out rightly rejected the Indian allegations and said it was conceived, planned and executed indigenously. The Prime Minister of Naya Pakistan (a slogan promoted during the election campaign) Imran Khan a cricketer converted politician warned India to restrain from any offensive. He stated in a video message to nation that India is accusing Pakistan without any evidence, and offer joint investigation. Contrary he highlights the grave human rights violations committed by the Indian security forces in Jammu and Kashmir and pointed out that India must think that what makes Kashmiri youth to take arms and lost their fear of death. On Thursday, 21th February, Prime Minister convened the National Security Council meeting to discuss the geopolitical scenario after the Pulwama attack. The statement of NSC reaffirms commitment to fight against terrorism and banned the Jammad ud Dawa (JuD) and Falah-i-Insaniyat (FIF) organizations led by Hafiz Saeed. The PM also directed the senior decision makers to accelerate the National Action Plan which was convened in 2014 to combat terrorism. Simultaneously, the NSC also gave formal authorization to the armed forces “to respond decisively and comprehensively to any aggression or misadventure by India”.
Lobbies are the frontiers of nation states to procure their national interests in anarchical international system. There are different forms of lobbying groups including: the diaspora, business and educational groups, journalists, and public diplomacy groups. However, the most important is the official diplomatic missions of state, which effectively defend the national interests. In recent years, India has invested huge money and strength in lobbying groups to secure its interests in the United States and other European states. The Indian diaspora is playing the fundamental role in bridging the gap between Indian and the United States. Meanwhile Indian official diplomacy also made remarkable success in winning friends and allies. For example, Pakistan’s traditional friends Saudi Arabia and UAE had started to pay special attention to New Delhi over Pakistan which was a grave concern for policy making circles in Islamabad.
India also tried to hit hard Pakistan after Pulwama attacks by approaching various nations. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman paid a state visit to India where he was highly welcomed. During his meetings with Indian leadership, he announced to invest billions of dollar in India and in a joint statement he reaffirmed Saudi commitment to fight against terrorism. He stated that terrorism is a big threat to both India and Saudi Arabia and two countries would work hard to dismantle the terror infrastructure. Although, he shared the concerns over terrorism and condemned the Pulwama attack, but he skillfully made no mention of Pakistan in sponsoring terrorism, which was India’s erstwhile wish. Similarly Saudi FM Adel Al-Jubeir in an interview with Indian News Channels praised the Pakistan army to curb terrorism. He said Pakistan did a lot of work against terrorism and thousands of its soldiers and civilians sacrificed their lives to win the war against terrorism. The anchor repeatedly questioned him to speak against Pakistan, but he continued to appreciate the Pakistani efforts. In another interview with India Today, when anchor inquired that why Saudi Arabia reluctant to name Pakistan for terrorism in Pulwama. He said that he is not sure who is responsible for terrorism and therefore is not in a position to address the issue. But he emphasized that Saudi Arabia has worked hard to designate a number of terrorist groups including some in Pakistan. The anchor persistently dragged him to name Pakistan for terrorism but the Saudi Minister carefully avoided his trap by stating that he is not aware about the situation. Therefore not in a position to comment.
In recent past the US and India have developed close strategic partnership and announced to work together. In last year, President Trump used stern language against Pakistan for offering safe heavens to terrorists and stopped the military and economic assistance. But after Pulwama, the language of US president suggests a balancing approach towards both South Asian rivals. President Trump termed the current situation between India and Pakistan very dangerous. He said “it’s a terrible thing going on right now between Pakistan and India … it is a very, very bad situation and it’s a very dangerous situation between the two countries. We would like to see it stopped. A lot of people were just killed and we want to see it stopped”. Meanwhile, he claimed that his administration has developed a much better relationship with Pakistan even after cutting the $1.3 billion financial assistance to Islamabad. The American response on Pulwama attack exposed that Indian diplomacy failed to persuade President Trump to hold responsible Pakistan. While it also confirm that Pakistan won the trust of United States for its anti-terror efforts.
Turkey also rejected the Indian accusations for involvement of Pakistan in cross border terrorism. Turkish Foreign Minister expressed complete understanding of Pakistan’s position in a meeting with his Pakistani counterpart Shah Mahmood Qureshi. The UN is an international body responsible to maintain peace and security. After a week on Thursday the UNSC issued a statement condemning the terrorist attack and expressing the solidarity with India. The UNSC also urged all nations around the globe to work together to get rid the menace of terrorism. Describing the attack as a “heinous and coward suicide bombing” the UNSC statement noted that “Jaish-e-Mohammad has claimed responsibility” for it. The JeM is already banned in Pakistan. Diplomatic observers in Washington stated that Islamabad and its allies, particularly Beijing, had worked hard to keep any reference to Pakistan out of the Security Council statement. To vanish the misunderstanding, on Friday China’s foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang told reporters in Beijing that the reference to Jaish in the UNSC statement was only in “general terms” and “does not represent a judgement”.
The European Union spokesperson also issued a statement on heinous attack in Pulwama. In the statement, EU expresses its deep sadness and condolences to the victims’ families and reaffirms its full solidarity with India. But contrary, European Parliament’s sub-committee on human rights hosted an official exchange of views on the situation of human rights in Indian-occupied Kashmir. It is first time in a decade that EU members publicly discussed the grave human rights violations in IOK. The discussions paid special attention to June 2018 UN report on human rights situation in Kashmir. The author of the report was invited by the committee where she highlighted the dire human rights situation in the IOK and recommended for establishing a commission of inquiry. The sub-committee Chair Pier Antonio Panzeri expressed the EU’s commitment to uphold and protect human rights throughout the world. However, he pointed out that the event was focused on the human rights situation in Kashmir and the plight of Kashmiris. At the end members called on India to immediately put a halt to its atrocities in occupied Kashmir and carry out investigations into the incidents of grave human rights violations.
The Pulwama attack was a test case for newly established government of Imran Khan. In the past decade, governments of former President Asif Zardari and PM Nawaz Sharif largely failed to project the Pakistani viewpoint on international forums. The primary reason was absence of foreign minister, as the two leaders reserved this critical post for themselves, which in turn seriously damaged the national interests. During this period, India had made remarkable success on diplomatic fronts by winning support from the United States, EU, and Islamic States around the globe. However, PM Imran Khan immediately observed the importance of foreign minister and appointed Mr. Shah Mahmood Qureshi as external minister of Pakistan, who is experienced, vigilant and committed to national interests. Mr. Qureshi’s team worked very hard to shun off Indian malign policy after Pulwama through reaching out friends and allies across the globe. The foreign office team under Qureshi worked round the clock and convinced the world that Pakistan is a responsible state and have no connections with terrorists. On the other hand, Indian diplomacy ultimately met with mixed results and failed to sell Pakistan terror sponsoring mantra. Majority of the nations refused to include Pakistan behind the terror attack in IOK, which left Modi government in somber embarrassment.
In concluding remarks, we claim that Indian rhetoric to isolate Pakistan is meeting with failure as Islamabad skillfully painting its achievements in the fight against terrorism. At the end, it is recommended that India must change its thoughts for Pakistan as confrontation is not rational for both nuclear powers, whereas only cooperation can bring mutual benefits for this region. War is not a solution for disputes as history of modern Europe tells us that even after longest wars, states settled down their disputes through negotiations and dialogue. So the vigilant leadership of both countries must opt the path of peace and dialogue, which ultimately leads them to peace and security.
US geopolitical interests offer Iran sanctions loophole amid mounting tension
The Indian-backed Iranian port of Chabahar has emerged as a major loophole in a tightening military and economic noose and ever harsher US sanctions that President Donald J. Trump, reluctant to be sucked into yet another war, sees as the best way to either force Tehran to its knees or achieve regime change.
Alice Wells, the State Department’s assistant secretary for South and Central Asia, said during a meeting with Afghan foreign minister Salahuddin Rabbani that Chabahar had been exempted at Afghanistan’s request.
The State Department said earlier that the exemption was granted because it was related to “reconstruction assistance and economic development for Afghanistan, which includes the development and operation of Chabahar Port.”
US officials said privately that the exemption was also a nod to India that sees Chabahar as vital for the expansion of its trade with Afghanistan and Central Asian republics.
They said it was moreover an anti-dote to the Chinese backed port of Gwadar just 70 kilometres down the Arabian Sea coast in the troubled neighbouring Pakistani province of Balochistan.
That may be a long shot, certainly as long as India like much of the rest of the world is restricted by the US sanctions in its economic and commercial dealings with Iran.
The exemption comes however as Chinese security concerns in Balochistan as well as Pakistan at large are mounting.
China’s massive US$45 billion plus Belt and Road-related infrastructure investment in Pakistan with Gwadar and Balochistan at its core has become a prime target for nationalist insurgents that has officials in Beijing worried. It has also reinforced long-standing doubts in some circles in Beijing about the viability of the project.
Dubbed the China Pakistan Economic Corridor or CPEC, China sees the project, involving a network of roads, railways and pipelines that would link Gwadar to China’s troubled north-western province of Xinjiang as a key economic component of its brutal effort to Sincize the strategic region’s Turkic Muslim population.
“China, you came here (Balochistan) without our consent, supported our enemies, helped the Pakistani military in wiping our villages. But now it’s our time… Baloch Liberation Army (BLA) guarantees you that CPEC will fail miserably on the Baloch land. Balochistan will be a graveyard for your expansionist motives,” a commander of the BLA’s Majeed Brigade said in a video message released a week after militants stormed a hilltop, highly secured luxury hotel in Gwadar, killing five people.
The BLA claimed a month earlier responsibility for an attack on a convoy on a highway leading out of Gwadar in which 14 Pakistani military personnel died and an assault last year on the Chinese consulate in Karachi.
The attacks and threats have prompted Chinese sceptics of China’s massive investment in Pakistan to express their doubts more publicly.
“Gwadar wants to be in the shipping business, but it has failed to do so. Pakistan’s economy is not very good, and this port has become very wasteful … under these circumstances, including with the hotel attack, how can China conduct its business? The roads and traffic cannot even be maintained,” said Beijing-based military analyst Zhou Chenming.
While many in Pakistan believe that the BLA enjoys Iranian support and Iranians are convinced that Pakistan enables shadowy Islamic militants who have claimed responsibility for a rare suicide bombing in December in Chabahar and attacks on Revolutionary Guards elsewhere in the Iranian province of Sistan and Balochistan, fact of the matter is that both countries are vulnerable to Baloch insurgents.
The situation on both sides of the Iranian-Pakistani border is complicated by suspicions that the violence also has links to the rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia and that the Baloch provinces of Pakistan and Iran could become a stage for a proxy war.
Amid reports that China has reached out to Baloch nationalist leaders in exile, Pakistani security analyst Muhammad Amir Rana cautioned that the exiles may no longer be in control.
“The new leadership of the Baloch insurgency largely hails from the educated middle class with urban backgrounds and is not hiding in Europe; therefore, it does not face the sort of constraints that exiled Baloch leaders do vis-à-vis Iran,” Mr. Rana said.
Mr. Rana noted that Iran’s influence in Pakistani Balochistan was visible in oil smuggled across the border, Iranian products in grocery shops and the supply of electricity to the coastal strip of Makran that includes Gwadar.
“For Pakistan, the security cost of CPEC is increasing which could frustrate the Chinese as well as foreign and local investors,” Mr. Rana warned.
For now, China confronts a more serious challenge in Gwadar, Balochistan as well as other parts of Pakistan that are struggling with un-related incidents of political violence compared to India and Chabahar.
That could change if the Saudi Iranian component of the low level Baloch insurgency spins out of control with the escalating stand-off between the United States and Iran.
Iran appears to have pinned its hopes that Chabahar will be shielded from the impact of regional tensions on the perceived US geopolitical need to protect India’s interest in Afghanistan and Central Asia.
Said Pir Mohammad Mollazeh, an Iranian Afghanistan and Central Asia scholar: “US long-term geopolitical interests, due to the lack of relations with Iran, require India to maintain its position in the region and protect India as a partner in Central Asia… Chabahar port is considered to be a very important and strategic which is an opportunity for our country to enable Iran to reduce its sanctions by means of economic exchanges in Chabahar.”
Pointless Colonial Massacres and Post-Colonial Wars and Killings on the Indian Subcontinent
Two colonial mass killings from the twentieth century are always remembered: The Qissa Khwani Bazaar massacre on April 23, 1930 in Peshawar (then India, now in Pakistan) was the result of peaceful demonstrations protesting the arrest of Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan who had called for a nonviolent movement of ‘patience and righteousness.’ Authorities nervous at the size of the crowds called in the military. The local Garhwal Rifles refused an order to fire. A special city disturbance column and four armored cars were sent for; they did not. The number of dead vary with the source ranging from 20 to 400. Whatever the figures, the incident legitimized the protest movement and creating a new Gandhi of the northwest in Ghaffar Khan.
Pakistan since independence has had insurgencies — in the Northwest where Peshawar is located,in Baluchistan (ongoing) and, the worst of all in its eastern half in 1971 that led to the birth of Bangladesh. Estimates of casualties range from 300,000 to 3 million.
This year is the centenary of the notorious Jallianwalla Bagh massacre in Amritsar. April 13, 1919 was the day of Baisakhi, a major Sikh festival, so people had come to the holy city from surrounding Punjab villages and gathered to listen to speakers. They were also unhappy with the deportation of independence leaders Dr. Saifuddinn Kitchlew and Dr. Satya Pal out of state to Dharamsala. The protesters were mostly Sikh, the leaders being deported a Muslim and a Hindu, and India then secular in the minds of the people.
Brig-General Reginald Dyer the local commander had banned all meetings. To him the crowd gathering in the Bagh was a challenge to authority. He took a contingent of Gurkha troops and proceeded forthwith to disperse what to him was an illegal assembly. It is worth noting that Nepali Gurkhas are alien to the area, speak a different language, and look more like Tibetans. The force took up positions on a raised bank at the main entrance and were ordered to fire on the unarmed crowd. People tried to flee toward the other exits and in the stampede some were trampled. Yet the firing continued for an incomprehensible ten whole minutes using up 1650 rounds and leaving hundreds dead and over a thousand wounded.
No respite for the Sikhs despite their anti-Muslim stance during the 1947 partition. In 1984 following Indira Gandhi’s assassination by a Sikh bodyguard — itself a result of her military response killing Sikh religious zealots occupying the Amritsar Golden Temple — riots broke out. An estimated 8000-17,000 Sikhs were killed in Delhi and Haryana. The connivance of the Delhi police and the Congress party has long been suspected, and Human Rights Watch has complained of no prosecution for the killings. Ditto for the perpetrators of the Muslim pogrom in Gujarat during Narendra Modi’s rule.
While the callousness of the Qissa Khwani Bazaar and Jallianwalla Bagh incidents horrifies, the number killed pales in comparison to what has happened since independence. Within months of freedom, India invaded the independent principality of Hyderabad, allied to the British since the 18th century. An estimated 200,000 people were killed and many fled to Pakistan.
It also invaded, occupied (1973) and then annexed Sikkim in 1975, a Himalayan foothill monarchy since 1642. The suppressed independence movement in neighboring Assam and the Northeast and other ongoing insurgencies across at least a quarter of India continue.
In Kashmir, a decades long struggle for some kind of autonomy has cost tens of thousands of lives. Estimates vary from 40 to 80 thousand. Some Indians have a conscience: Long critical of India’s stance, the Booker Prize winning novelist and peace activist Arundhati Roy has called the Modi government ‘reckless’ in its policy there.
The Muslim minority in India appears to be intimidated and abused. A recent feature story on Chamanganj, a Muslim neighborhood in Kanpur, illuminates the distress and discrimination experienced by Muslims. The Congress candidate never visits; the BJP candidate shows up hoping to capture some votes but his party’s policy is notoriously anti-Muslim.
The violence against Christians is also on the rise. Opendoorsusa.org reports over 12,000 incidents last year, while the number of churches attacked rose dramatically from 34 to 98. It has now become the 10th most dangerous country in the world for Christians on the 2019 World Watch List.
A secular India, the pride of Indian independence leader and its first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru, is under threat. In its place, a muscular Hindu nationalist agenda enforced by goons from nationalist organizations has been labeled “saffron terror”. The Hudson Institute called these attacks “not inchoate mob violence, triggered by … insult; rather they involved careful planning by organized Hindu extremists …”
The record is surprising yet evident: Independent India has killed hundreds of times more people than the Dyer atrocity, and the present-day Indian subcontinent is becoming a noticeable contrast to the relatively secular country of 1919. In India itself, the Modi government and its affiliates by encouraging Hindu nationalism must shoulder the blame.
The Durand Line Issue
The Durand Line is a 2,200-kilometre debated border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. It was set up in 1893 between Sir Mortimer Durand, a British negotiator and respectful hireling of the British Raj, and Abdur Rahman Khan, the Afghan Amir, to settle the constrain of their individual circles of impact and make stride discretionary relations and exchange between the two nations. Afghanistan was considered by the British as a free state at the time, in spite of the fact that the British controlled its remote issues and discretionary relations. The single-page assertion, dated 12 November 1893, contains seven brief articles, counting a commitment not to work out obstructions past the Durand Line.
A joint British-Afghan boundary overview took put beginning from 1894, covering a few 1,300 km of the border. Built up towards the near of the British-Russian “Great Game”, the coming about line set up Afghanistan as a buffer zone between British and Russian interface within the locale.
The line, as somewhat adjusted by the Anglo-Afghan Settlement of 1919, was acquired by Pakistan in 1947, taking after its independence. The forced Durand Line cuts through the Pashtun tribal ranges and assist south through the Balochistan locale, politically partitioning ethnic Pashtuns, as well as the Baloch and other ethnic bunches, who live on both sides of the border. It demarcates Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Balochistan and Gilgit-Baltistan of northern and western Pakistan from the northeastern and southern areas of Afghanistan.
From a geopolitical and geostrategic viewpoint, it has been depicted as one of the foremost unsafe borders within the world. Although Pakistan recognized the Durand Line as an international border, it remains to a great extent unrecognized by Afghanistan. In 2017, in the midst of cross-border pressures, previous Afghan President Hamid Karzai said that Afghanistan will “never perceive” the Durand Line as the international border between the two countries.
The Durand line remains a bone of contention between the two nations and a primary reason why Afghanistan and Pakistan have yet failed to establish cordial relations. Afghanistan claims a chunk of the KPK and Balochistan provinces of Pakistan on the basis that it was acceded to Pakistan, though it was originally a part of Afghanistan, with people dwelling on each sides having the same culture, language and way of life etc.
What is very clear is that relations between the two states have been tinged with hostility ever since Pakistan became an independent state in 1947. There are mainly two interrelated, historical reasons for this: the problem of the “Durand Line” — the shared but disputed border of the two countries; and Afghan support for the “Pakhtoonistan” movement in Pakistan’s North West Frontier Province (NWFP)
The questions is answered by both nations with a bias towards their respective national interest in mind, both Pakistan and Afghanistan claiming areas divided by the Durand line as their legitimate part.
Major accusations of Afghanistan over the Durand line are: its legitimacy period has terminated; it was in the original agreement between the British and the Afghans claimed its validity only for 100 years, which has expired. Nevertheless, neither Afghan government, nor the foremost dynamic advocates of this see have ever displayed any plain instrument demonstrating their claim. Nor do we discover, upon looking at the pertinent archives, i.e. the Durand Line assertion and the rest of the records confirmed until 1896 by the individual committees for assurance and boundary of the British-Afghan border, any arrangement confining the term of the understanding to 100 year time. It is undoubtedly a riddle how this supposition might spread over the nation without being addressed at all.
Another claim of Afghanistan in the de-legitimizing the boarded is that the assertions relating to it collapsed when the British exchanged powers to Pakistan. The agreement was done with British India and not with Pakistan. This was a main reason that Afghanistan was one of the very few countries that opposed the addition of Pakistan in the UN- since it alleged it of illegally annexing Afghanistan’s territory.
One more accusation to not accept the boarder comes as the understandings were persuasively forced upon Afghanistan-it is ethically unmerited- is certainly an issue worth encourage talk and contention. In any case, whereas one may concede the dispute to be fair and genuine, it remains deficiently to refute the status of the Durand Line as an international border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Durand Line understanding of 1893 isn’t the sole point of reference in border assessment. At slightest other four assertions (of 1905, 1919, 1921 and 1930), which had the assent of both sides, must be counseled. Clearly, Afghanistan cannot claim that all of the afterward four assertions were concluded in a coercive environment, particularly the Kabul 1921 understanding for foundation of neighborly commercial relations, which not as it were marked but approved in 1922, and beneath which disobedience was traded by the agents of both states in Kabul.
The boarder is not rejected by any other party of the world except Afghanistan itself, making the Afghan case further weakened.
No matter how much Afghanistan retaliates over this matter, the Durand line is widely accepted as an international boarder and the afghan claim will likely not bear fruit. The Afghans should rather hold the British accountable for the “so said” unfair distribution and not Pakistan, since Pakistan did not decide into this matter at all but was a decision purely made between the Afghans and the British- rather battle the British towards their claim and not make this a political issue more than a legitimate claim.
Is Iran Testing Trump With Little Attacks in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the Persian Gulf?
Authors: Anne Speckhard, Ardian Shajkovci The sound of an explosion echoed through the Green Zone on Sunday night around 9:00...
Impressions from South Africa’s election
South Africa’s recent general election has bucked the international trend towards populism by consolidating its democracy at the political centre....
A Dozen Interesting Facts About Four Seasons Hotel Bengaluru
1. Located in North Bengaluru, the city’s growth corridor, Four Seasons Hotel Bengaluru can be reached in less than 30...
US geopolitical interests offer Iran sanctions loophole amid mounting tension
The Indian-backed Iranian port of Chabahar has emerged as a major loophole in a tightening military and economic noose and...
Data Collaboration for the Common Good
Delivering on the promise of public-private data collaboration for the common good requires attention in five priority areas according to...
Guatemala partners with UNWTO to launch Sustainable Tourism Observatory
The World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) has welcomed Guatemala into its International Network of Sustainable Tourism Observatories (INSTO). The Central American...
South Korea should go with the United States
Now, previous success won’t guarantee same success in future in the age of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, We are expecting...
East Asia3 days ago
Power Projection of China
Religion3 days ago
Will Islamophobes take over democracies in the West?
Reports3 days ago
SMEs are driving job growth, but need higher investment in skills, innovation and tech
South Asia2 days ago
The Durand Line Issue
Middle East2 days ago
Iran vs. US: Bracing for war?
Middle East2 days ago
A survey of Arab youth highlights gaps between policies and aspirations
Environment2 days ago
World Bank to Strengthen Human Capital and Climate Resilience in Haiti
Defense2 days ago
Turkey is the Guarantor of Peace in the Black Sea region