Connect with us

South Asia

China dimension to Kashmir conflict

Amjed Jaaved

Published

on

One has to admit willy-nilly that propaganda does have the power to distort fact. Nay, the distorted reality becomes beliefs that remain unchanged in dark recesses of gullible finds. Let us look at one such disinformation-drilled `belief’, as published and republished in India’s directories and yearbooks. The canard is that Pakistan yielded land (varying guestimates up to 5,000 square kilometres) under Sino-Pakistan boundary agreement signed on March 2, 1963. The truth is that China yielded 2,000 square kilometres of administered territory to Pakistan. C china does have boundary disputes with India. As an emerging hegemon, China could have amended its boundary maps in accordance with its official position of security and territorial integrity. But, president Xi Jinping of China has a phlegmatic temperament in stark contrast with bucolic, volatile Narendra |Modi of India.

Like Kashmir dispute, Mcmahon and Durand lines are maleficent legacies of British colonial raj (rule). The colonists left behind frontier ‘zones’ called ilaqas (un-demarcted regions) like the McMahon Line with Tibet (or Durand Line with Afghanistan). There was a hullabaloo when China took over the hypothetical McMahon Line in 1950.

India felt like being caught napping. The reality is that India’s then prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru was engrossed in Aksai Chin in Ladakh from 1949 to 1959. Tibet-Xinjiang Highway ran through McMahon Line, a vital area. India’s vital interest was the McMahon Line in the east. China did not protest at all when India ousted the figure-head Tibetan administration in Tawang in February 1951.

Background to McMahon Line

A few facts about McMahon Line are in order. In April 1914, McMahon somehow managed to get the draft treaty initialed by the Chinese delegate Ivan Chen. Later, McMahon and the Tibetan representative signed a joint declaration to the effect that the redrafted convention would be binding on both their governments.

Maxwell in his book, India’s China War, brings out that the map accompanying the draft convention showed the proposed division of Tibet into ‘Inner’ and ‘Outer’ Zones. The frontier of Tibet was marked in red colour and the proposed boundary between the two Tibetan Zones in blue colour. But the red line which for greater part of its length showed the boundary between Tibet and China, curved round its southern extension to show what would have been boundary between India and Tibet. In that ‘sector it followed the alignment on which McMahon had agreed with the Tibetans’. The proceedings of the agreement were made public in 1935 and the Survey of India began to mark the lines on their maps.

After the Second World War, the McMahon line got revived. Posts happened to be established in the two regions through routes, Walong and Dirang Dzong, which connected India with Tibet.

India’s view

Though India does not have a cogent case on the boundary issue, let’ us elucidate India’s point of view vis-à-vis China’s. India believes: (a) in the Eastern Sector, the McMahon Line is respected by China in the actual observance,  even though name of this line is anathema to the Chinese as a “hangover from the era of colonialism”. The two countries have divergent perceptions about two vital places. These are Thag La (Chodong) and Migyuton (Long ju). ThagLa lies towards east of Bhutan and adjoins it. Long ju lies, on another border route to the east of it. (b) In the Central Sector, that is, the alignment west of Nepal and reaching the Ladakh area of the IRK, the disputes concern the alignment of postures at Bara Roti (Wu Je). Here both sides have agreed before 1962 to respect the status-quo and not to maintain any military presence. (c) It is in Ladakh, that the two sides have a major difference over the alignment.

China’s view

The main points of the Chinese view are: (a) there were only four points of dispute on the line of actual control. Regarding area in Ladakh under dispute, China had declared in 1963 that she would vacate the area in which India had set up 43 military posts prior-to the War of 1962. However the border adjoining Baltistan and the Dardic States being under Pakistan’s control, India should first settle the Kashmir dispute with Pakistan. (b) The Aksai Chin road is vital to China, because it links Western Tibet to Sinkiang This road, built by the Chinese from Shigatse in Tibet to Yechen in Sinkiang, covers a distance of 2,000 miles at a height varying from 11,000 ft. to 16,000 ft. through Aksai Chin. In Akasai Chin the road passes through Shabidulla (once the outpost of the State of Jammu and Kashmir) and ends at Kokyar where Sinkiang begins. Even though the journey is difficult and arduous, the Chinese use it in preference to the Keriya route which passes East of Aksai Chin and also links Rhutog in Western Tibet to Khotan in Sinkiang.

The Aksai Chin road, together with the highway from Kashgar to the Khunjerab Pass and onwards into Pakistan, forms part of the lines of communication in the two remote non-Han autonomous republics, namely Tibet and Sinkiang). (c) Part of India’s border with the Sinkiang autonomous region is under Pakistan’s control since 1947. So, again, India should first settle the dispute with’ Pakistan first (As per Pakistan’s and Azad Kashmir’s governments’ agreement, the Northern Areas are under administrative control of Pakistan. (Facsimile of the agreement is given in Yousaf Saraf’s Kashmiris Fight for Freedom). The Northern Areas include Gilgit, Hunza, and Baltistan, except the frontier from Siachen Glacier in the West to the Karakoram Pass and Aksai Chin. (The areas are of importance to upper Ladakh as the two rivers, the Shyok and Mibra have their origin here in Rumo and Siachin Glaciers respectively. The two rivers join and then fall into the Indus River and serve the water needs of the whole area of Ladakh North of Indus.) (d) The provisional agreement between China and Pakistan in respect of the area west of Siachin Glacier in March 1963 gives the area of Shaksgam, which abuts on the Siachin to China. Some areas of Tapndumbash, Pamir and Raksam have been given by China to Pakistan. (e) The 1963 agreement between Pak and China covers the border right up to the Karakoram Pass. These areas will need tripartite negotiations when political conditions become favorable.

Why border dispute with China lingers on

India makes equivocal statements about its boundary position with China. It says one thing in Beijing and quite the other in New Delhi. China has magnanimously solved most of its border disputes with other countries, except India. China abhors India’s equivocation. India is content with endless “positive” and “satisfactory” Joint Working Group negotiations on the boundary issue. A recent article in the Chinese-foreign ministry sponsored journal, International Studies, Cheng Ruisheng, an advisor to the Chinese foreign ministry, claims that India illegally occupies 90,000 sq. km of Chinese territory in the eastern sector, 33,000 sq. km of Chinese territory in the western sector, and 2,000 sq. km of Chinese territory in the middle sector. 

Despite India’s diplomatic hypocrisy, the two countries took some well-meaning steps. They appointed special representatives to accelerate border negotiations, lingering for 22 years. Now, India prime minister’s principal secretary is India’s negotiator, replacing the India-China joint working-group. Indian prime minister’s visit to China in June 2003 was the first-ever in decades. The joint declaration signed during this visit acknowledged `China was not a threat to India’. India recognised China’s sovereignty over Tibet and pledged not to allow “anti-China” political activities in India (pampering De Lai Lama as a protégé).   On its part, China acknowledged India’s 1975 annexation of the former monarchy of Sikkim by agreeing to open a trading post along the border with the former kingdom and later by rectifying its official maps to include Sikkim as part of India. In his first address to the nation, then India’s prime minister, Manmohan Singh, emphasized carrying forward process of further development and diversification of Sino-Indian relations. Jingoistic Modi’s priority remained Pakistan, not China. It tried to weaken Pakistan internally (abetting terrorism in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan provinces) and bankrupting Pakistan at Financial Action Task Force underhand talks. It embarrassed China while getting some entities Pakistanis designated as terrorists.

Could Kashmir trigger disintegration of Indian ‘Union’

India should revisit its history how Indian Union came into being _through compromises with `rebellious’ icons like Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah of Kashmir, Master Tara Singh of East Punjab, Lal Denga of Mizoram, Angami Zapu Phizo (1913–1990) “Father of the Nagas”, , and so on.

Let India realise that Indian Union is a loose sally, a cauldron of centrifugal movement, at rest for the time being. Visualise what happens to this Union if China begins supply of weapons to various insurgent groups fighting in northeastern India. China hem India in from both, the eastern and the western flanks.

A digression of Naxalbari link to Kashmir’s freedom movement

India arrested several intellectuals for links to separatist movements (indiatvnews dated August 30, 2018). These letters `establish links between the Naxals and Kashmiri separatists’. They `suggest support of Congress leaders to extreme Leftists agenda, and even give proof that the arrested accused were involved in procuring weapons and arming the rebels through international routes’. The letters were written by, or on behalf of P Varavara Rao, Gautam Navlakha, Arun Ferreira, Vernon Gonsalves, and Sudha Bharadwaj. Police story `exposes

`Maoists plot to assassinate PM’. Congress shrugged off allegation as Modi’s ‘old tactic’).

The term “Naxalite” is rooted in Naxalbari village (West Bengal) where Kanhu Sanyal presented the concept of “forcible protest against the social order relating to holding of property and sharing of social benefits”. To him the purpose of the protest was “organizing peasants to bring about land reform through radical means including violence”.

Charu Mazumdar is given credit for making the Naxalite movement (“left wing extremism”) a practical reality. He started the movement as a “revolutionary opposition” in 1965.  The world came to know of the movement in 1967 when the Beijing Radio reported “peasants’ armed struggle” at Naxalbari (Silliguri division of West Bengal). In July 1972, the police arrested Charu Mazumdar.  They later tortured him to death on the night of July 27-28.

The Naxalite ideology has great appeal for marginalised strata (particularly,oppressed,and adivasis, tribal) of India’s caste-ridden society. The Naxalites aim, as contained in their Central Committee’s resolution (1980) is: ‘Homogenous contiguous forested area around Bastar Division (since divided into Bastar, Dantewada and Kanker Districts of Chhatisgarh) and adjoining areas of Adilabad, Karimnagar, Khammam, East Godavari Districts of Andhra Pradesh, Chandrapur and Garchehiroli district of Maharastra, Balaghat districts of Madhya Pradesh, Malkagiri and Koraput districts of Orissa would comprise the area of Dandakarnaya which would be liberated and used as base for spreading people’s democratic revolution’.

The Naxalites want to carve out an independent zone extending from Nepal through Bihar and then to Dandakarnaya region extending upto Tamil Nadu to give them access to the Bay of Bengal as well as the Indian Ocean’.  Several pro-Naxalite revolutionary bodies (People’s War, Maoist Communist Centrei,  and Communist Party of Nepal) merged their differences (October 15, 2004) to achieve their sea-access aim.

The tremendous appeal of the Naxalite movement is due to the popularity of their agenda for the common man _ land distribution and development of agricultural sector, ridding World Bank’s influence, social justice to the dalits (oppressed),  development of coastal Andhra and Rayaseema region, and eradication of corruption.

The movement is growing more and more popular.  It has already engulfed 13 Indian states and is spreading to the other states.  Chief ministers of India’s 13 states, at their coordination conference, admitted their incapacity to meet the Naxalite menace.  They appealed to the centre to raise a joint task force to meet the Naxalite insurgency.

India shrugs off Naxalite movement as an internal-security problem.  However, the populist appeal of the movement’s ideology reflects that it could assume international dimensions, if supported by China.  India’s Lieutenant General KM Seth laments, ‘Unfortunately, the threat to internal security from Naxalites has acquired dangerous proportions and can no longer be wished away.  …they are also developing links with Turkish and Philippino terrorist organisations…We have suffered and bled patiently and have taken huge human casualties, which could exceed 13,000, uniformed personnel and 53,000 civilians during the last 25 years… As of today, their overall strength could be put to approximately 20, 000 undergrounds, 50,000 over-grounds and more than a lakh in frontal organisations. Their armoury  is reported to comprise approximately 900 AK-47 rifles, 200 light machine guns, 100 grenade firing rifles, 2 inch mortars, thousands of .303 rifles, self-loading rifles and .12-bore guns with a huge quantity of explosives at their disposal’. (“Naxalite Problem”, U. S. I. Journal , January-March 2005, New Delhi, p. 19, 23).

India may blame Pakistan for the freedom movement (‘insurgency’ or ‘militancy’) in occupied Kashmir.  But, who shall she blame for the Naxalite insurgency in Andhra Pradesh and other Indian states? This is a movement against economic deprivation and brutality of the state or central government’s law-enforcing agencies.

Indian media has now begun to report that the counter-insurgency forces are fearful of grappling the Naxalites.  In Guntur (Andhra Pradesh), the Naxalite announced a cash reward of five lac rupees per policeman (“Reward scheme sends forces into huddle”, Indian Express, August 25, 2005). Then IG (Guntur Range) Rajwant Singh admitted, ‘My men are removing the posters and convincing the villagers to inform them about the activities of Naxalites’.

Hardly a day passes without a Naxalite attack on government’s forces or installations, attacks on convoys, banks, railway stations, kidnapping of informers and assassination of anti-Naxalite figures.  Some recent incidents include two Central Reserve Police Force personnel killed in Naxal attack in Chhattisgarh. The gun-battle took place near Keshkutul village under the Bhairamgarh police station area when a joint team of the CRPF’s 199th battalion and local police was out on an area domination operation (Press Trust of India, New Delhi, June 28, 2019). In another incident, fifteen members of the Quick Response Team of the Gadchiroli (Lendhari nullah in Kurkheda area) police were killed in a land-mine blast. Sixteen policemen, on way to inspect the torched vehicles, were blown off at police posts and forest department’s towers. Four policemen were killed to loot the sum of Rs 12 lac (railway-men’s salary), hacking 16 more. Earlier, Naxals killed of Bandwan CPI-M leader Rabindra Nath Kar and his wife, and Madhya Pradesh Transport Minister Lakhiram Kaware (Congress).

In Naxalite-influenced rural areas, there is no trace of India’s judicial system.  There, the Naxalite organisations act ‘virtually like policemen, arresting, meeting out “justice” and in some cases even executing the guilty’ (“Internal security situation”, India’s National Security: Annual Review 2004, New Delhi, India Research Press, 2005, p. 87). 

With merger of pro-Naxalite revolutionary bodies, the Naxalites are the sole arbiters of justice in rural areas.  To counter rising Naxalite influence, the BJP and the Congress-coalition parties are cooperating in anti- Naxalites operations. 

Analysts in India realise that the Naxalite movement would the biggest headache for the Centre in the next few years. India’s home ministry admitted `increased Maoist activity in the tri-junction of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh(Hindustan Times, New Delhi Jul 04, 2019. Security forces were taking stick-and-carrot steps so that `rebels do not gain any foothold in the southern states’. `States such as Chhattisgarh, Andhra Pradesh, Odisha and Maharashtra have dedicated forces to fight the Maoists. The CRPF has a separate unit, CoBRA [Commando Battalions for Resolute Action]to counter the Maoists’.

Inference

Conspicuously, China’s position regarding McMahon is tenable under international law. Yet, it hesitated to print new maps, showing its northern and north-eastern frontier without reference to any McMahon Line.

China supports Pakistan’s view on Kashmir. The portents are that disputed Kashmir could trigger disintegration of the Indian `Union’, provided China decides to support centrifugal movements, particularly the Naxalbari.  Insurgncies and wars are ugly but they continue to dot history pages. China needs to re-think through emerging geo-political scenario. With obdurate India still unwilling to talk on Kashmir, despite China dimension, solution of India-Pak-China Kashmir tangle is nowhere in the offing. 

Mr. Amjed Jaaved has been contributing free-lance for over five decades. His contributions stand published in the leading dailies at home and abroad (Nepal. Bangladesh, et. al.). He is author of seven e-books including Terrorism, Jihad, Nukes and other Issues in Focus (ISBN: 9781301505944). He holds degrees in economics, business administration, and law.

Continue Reading
Comments

South Asia

Silver Linings of the New Political Map of Pakistan

Published

on

A ‘new political map’ of Pakistan was need of the hour in the midst of Indian controversial unilateral decisions in the region. With updated map, Pakistan clearly defines Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) as “disputed territory”; rejects Indian abrogation of Article 370 and 35-A that revoked J&K’s semi-autonomous status; and demands United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions on J&K to be implemented in their true letter and spirit.

In his address to the nation, on August 04, 2020, Prime Minister Pakistan Imran Khan reiterated the implementation of UNSC resolutions, giving the Kashmiri people their right to self-determination. “Their right to self-determination, given to them by the world community, has still not been given. And we clearly want to say to the world that it is the only solution,” he said. As part of Pakistan’s efforts, he assured that “we will do political struggle, we don’t believe in military solutions. We will remind the UN again and again that you had made a promise [to the people of Kashmir] which you did not fulfill.”

According to the new map, the final settlement of the J&K dispute will be in accordance with the UNSC resolutions. In this respect, the remaining area is clearly indicated as Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu & Kashmir (IIOJ&K). Second, the new map finally shows the long due development with the extension of the Line of Control (LoC) beyond NJ980420 to the Karakoram Pass, separating Pakistan and India’s position in the context of Actual Ground Position Line. Third, Pakistan rejects Indian claim on the western bank with the line for Sir Creek on the eastern bank on the basis of Thalweg doctrine. Fourth, the present map clearly integrates Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) with Pakistani province Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK).

While rejecting the map, India regarded it “an exercise in political absurdity… these ridiculous assertions have neither legal validity nor international credibility”. As per India’s Ministry of External Affairs’ statement, “Islamabad’s move confirms the reality of Pakistan’s obsession with territorial aggrandisement supported by cross-border terrorism”. In response, Foreign Office of Pakistan rejected Indian MEA’s statement and argued that “India cannot create a smokescreen for its illegal and unacceptable actions in Indian occupied Jammu & Kashmir, including those taken since 5 August 2019.It is preposterous for a country that is compulsively expansionist, and a brazen practitioner of state-terrorism, to level charges against others.”

Indian response was misunderstood as well as misinterpreted, not to mention social media responses on the development. That is why, the record needs to be set straight. The new map strengthens sovereignty of Pakistan with clear depiction of its sovereign claims and country’s position on its borders. Moreover, the new also negates the validity of all fake maps, circulating in and outside Pakistan. For instance, Post abrogation of article 370 and 35-A, Indian maps showed the illegally annexed areas of Jammu and Kashmir (including Ladakh) as well as the liberated areas of Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan and Aksai Chin as belonging to India.

Since 1947, India has been in illegal occupation of parts of J&K and has continuously violated UNSC resolutions for many years. India does not pay heed to the international law and norms by manifesting textbook bigotry. Over the years, bids to quell the unflinching freedom struggle have not been fruitful for India. Pakistan’s position, however, remains clear, unambiguous and consistent. The resolution of J&K dispute lies in the realization of the Kashmiris’ inalienable right to self-determination through an impartial plebiscite as per the guidance of the UN. In addition, Pakistan needs to move forward from just highlighting the issue in various capitals around the world to lobbying for legislators, human rights activists and the international media to play their long overdue role in the peaceful struggle of Kashmiris’ against Indian fascist designs. Nevertheless, the political map issued by Pakistan emphatically reaffirms this abiding commitment.”

Continue Reading

South Asia

India – Nepal bilateral relations stripped by China’s hegemonic theme in South Asia

Debadatta Mishra

Published

on

During this amid global pandemic, India meets particular strain from its northern neighbors’ country’s foreign policy. India and China have a significant disparity over the border issue. India is standing up to china by standstill the economic activities in both countries. India and Nepal have a strong bilateral relation performed was a significant role in Himalayan frontiers. India and Nepal shared deep cultural, economic, social, and political relations over many centuries. The ties between both countries frayed slowly started from the border disputes that arose after defense minister Rajnath Singh inaugurated a crucial road going through lipulekh to Kailash and Manasarovar, that route could quickly build connectivity within India with the Tibetan Plateau. The Nepal government protested that it could challenge the national sovereignty and status quo and fueled the #back of India movement in Nepal, which became a principal reason for bilateral instability in both countries. Nepal proclaims 400 sq km of Indian land in Kalapani, Lipulekh, and Limpiyadhura as part of Nepal territory. Kathmandu sends the new political map to the United Nations and Google for international recognition. India and Nepal claim the same disputed territory on their political map. India was the primary trade partner of Nepal, more than 65% of Nepal’s trade deals are possible through the Indian ports, so India dominated a larger scale in Nepal import and export sectors. In the meantime, China attempts to replace India’s position in Nepal’s economic and political domain. Recently Chinese President Xi Jinping said, “China and Nepal have always treated each other as equals,” although China revived the rail project between Nepal and China, the project cost estimate over USD 300 Million, with the determined deadline of completion in 2025. After the Rail connectivity, China ultimately became a lager trade partner in Nepal overthrow India. The domestic politics of Nepal, Currently Nepal ruling party Nepal Communist Party (NCP), is looking for political interest through China. Nepal is tilting towards China under the leadership of Prime Minister K P Oli and his Nepal Communist Party. Nepal took actions including banned Indian private news network broadcasting in Nepal, changed its citizen’s law, which makes disconcerted for India and constructed a helipad in a disputed location. China people liberation army (PLA) recently deploy the troops in Lipulekh pass, which currently disputed land between India and Nepal border. China mainly intervenes with India and Nepal’s disputes to obtain Nepal support accomplished to constrain India. China played a pivotal role in generating the anti-Indian rhetoric approach in Nepal’s internal domain.

Why is Nepal significant for China’s expansionism?

In Contemporary world politics, Dragon adopted an encroach approach upon neighbors’ countries. Nepal became a preeminent part of Chinese command and strategies to contend with India in every possible channel. Although the ambitious project of China to revive the ancient silk route and became the dominant financial capital in south Asia, it could be possible by Nepal’s proximity. China is striving to stimulate and tempt Nepal with multiple aids, economic growth, and acquisition by coordinating with the current ruling party of Nepal. On 2nd July 2018, The Business Standard published an article that highlights “by throwing money at Nepal, China limiting India influence in the region” for an extended period, China was invested in Nepal to gain political backing. Nepal is undoubtedly an essential aspect of the security of Indian’s borders. China’s military troops frequently entered in Indian territory (northeast state), and Nepal always became a barrier for such expansionism footsteps towards India’s territory. The border dispute was not new between both countries started from the Sugauli Treaty to kali river disputes, and both nations resolve such issues with bilateral negotiations. India also needs to ensure and revitalize the peace treaty between both countries. As sooner India solve the border dispute, it ultimately creates less chance to china’s intervene.

Since the dispute occurred, India and Nepal finally agreed for a custom high-level meeting regarding address the connectivity and development in both countries. India needs to adopt soft power diplomacy to maintain goodwill political relations with Nepal. As this global pandemic circumstances, India provided pharmaceutical and financial assistance to Nepal citizens. As a democratic ethics laden nation, Nepal – India border issue is easily solvable, with the restoration of the peace treaty with the modernized canvas. India requires adopting a new foreign policy to retrieve peaceful treaties with a new approach to cooperation with Nepal. India always admired the neighborhood’s first policy. The regional cooperation in the south Asian region necessitated fostering by India. India requires to get its act together and promote the regional cooperation structures with an inter-governmental organization that would unite the southern Asia region, such as the SAARC and BIMSTEC.

Continue Reading

South Asia

Rethinking “Naya” Pakistan

Ashish Dangwal

Published

on

“We (Pakistan) will eat grass, even go hungry, but we will get one of our own (Atom bomb), We have no other choice!” said ZA Bhutto, the then President of Pakistan. Almost 55 years have passed since then and Pakistan now, is on the verge of getting a title of ‘a failing nation’. The whole journey of this nation is full of ups and downs. Prime Minister Imran Khan came into power by promising to create a “Naya Pakistan”, however almost 2 years have passed and there is no sign of any major development in the country. From the last two decades, Pakistan is being labelled as the failed nation and has suffered bankruptcy along with bad governance-related issues. Although having an alliance with U.S.A (earlier) and now with China has helped the nation to overcome these Situations but nothing major can be pointed out. The current Prime Minister Imran Khan followed the same modus operandi of any other political party, i.e. to criticize the previous governments for the economic downturn and didn’t achieve anything significant in the process of reviving Pakistan’s economy. The economic downturn can be seen with the multiplicity of other factors such as the low foreign exchange reserves, low exports and high inflation. During his election rallies, PM Imran Khan promised to put the nation on the path of development and even expressed his views to promote the relations with India. However, during his tenure, the relations with India has only worsened. From domestic affairs to international affairs, the involvement of the Pakistani Army in the policymaking has increased in recent years. Gopalaswami Parthasarathy once said that “Every country has an army but in Pakistan, an army has a country”, this very simple statement shows the deep involvement of the Pakistani army in the domestic issues.

Let’s discuss the major challenges of Pakistan has facing now

Economic Challenges

India and Pakistan went different ways when India got independence from Britishers. However, the countries suffered the same fate in the early years with their same socio-economic conditions; with nearly half of the population under poverty. Both nations shared the same economic challenges but where one side India’s gradual economic development attracted foreign investors, Pakistan’s involvement in the Afghan war, the emergence of religious parties and domination of army in domestic affairs made Pakistan’s economic development arduous. From 1988, Pakistan has sought assistance from the IMF more than 10 times, which indicates its bad economic policies and planning. Pakistan has always shared its GDP’s lion share to its Army and nuclear programs, unfortunately, this made Pakistan’s economic planning incompetent. According to the budget of the fiscal year 2019-20 of Pakistan, all the major economic indicators have shown a downward movement like the growth indicator went down almost by 50% from 6.2 % to 3.3 % and even the inflation indicator is expected to go down by 13%. These figures are all-time low in the last 10 years and the recent bailout package worth $ 6 billion from IMF needs strong political will power in policymaking.

Religious Minorities

The Constitution of Pakistan guarantees “fundamental rights, including equality of status, of opportunity and before the law, social, economic and political justice, and freedom of thought, expression, belief, faith, worship and association, subject to the law and public morality” to its citizens. Many years have passed but none of these rights were ever given to the minorities of Pakistan. In 2018, Imran Khan promised that “PTI will protect the civil, social and religious rights of minorities; their places of worship, property and institutions as laid down in the Constitution.” But according to the USCIRF 2020 report, the continuous negative trends show the systematic enforcement of blasphemy and anti-Ahmadiyya laws, and authorities’ failure to address forced conversions of religious minorities—including Hindus, Christians, and Sikhs—to Islam, indicating the severely restricted freedom of religion or belief. Pakistan has a rich culture because of the different religious communities but the increasing persecution and atrocities cases on the minorities shows the worrisome disparity in the society. In 2019, a Hindu veterinarian has been charged with the blasphemy against Islam and protestors even burned down the shops of many Hindu shop owners. Increasing extremism and intolerance towards minorities in Pakistan is one of the major concerns for international organisations. In the same report of USCIRF mentioned that around 80 people were imprisoned for blasphemy, and half of them are facing the life sentence or death. This law has been used as the major tool for hardliners to marginalize the minority communities and over 70 people had been lynched to death in Pakistan on blasphemy charges since 1990. All these cases raise the questions on the current government and its efforts to promote a safe society.

Judicial Corruption

All the rights secured to the citizens under the Constitution are worth nothing, and a mere bubble, except guaranteed to them by an independent and virtuous Judiciary.” Said Andrew Jackson.

Having an independent judiciary system is one of the most important pillars for any democratic nation but in the case of Pakistan, it’s just another tool for oppression and abuse of power. Recently Pakistan got 120th rank in the rule of law 2020 index out of 128 countries, the three major indicators went down negative. In 2019, a video went viral in which a NAB judge was discussing how he convicted the former prime minister of Pakistan Nawaz Sharif for owning unexplained properties in London, delivered his decision under coercion. Since 1973, Armed forces targeted the independence of the judiciary to manipulate the decisions in their favour. In 2018, Islamabad high court judge was sacked for accusing the ISI as he said that country’s intelligence agency was manipulating the judicial proceedings to get the favourable decisions. This was not the first time where the involvement of ISIS undermined the independence of the judiciary system of this nation. Unfortunately, this was the case that happened during the making of so-called Naya Pakistan of Imran Khan.

Way forward

These are not the only areas where Pakistan is suffering but even the corrupt bureaucratic system and bad foreign policy choices put the country on the path to isolation in the international arena. The continuous obsession over Kashmir and growing extremism in the country can be seen in the policymaking process. People of Pakistan need to rethink about the idea of “Naya Pakistan” and the constant military involvement in their domestic affairs. Though PM Imran khan has tried to make some positive efforts towards religious minorities but he has failed to bring out any major changes in the society. As the Pakistani economy is already struggling, the recent COVID outbreak will soon put the nation on the ventilator support. One can decipher that the Imran Khan government will soon be facing major challenges in front of him and the only way forward would be taking difficult decisions such as to reform the existing economic and foreign policy. 

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Trending