Category — India

Former foreign minister Khursheed Mehmood Kasuri’s startling disclosure that a solution to the Kashmir problem had been worked out under the Musharraf government and that all that was required was a signature on the relevant documents is rather unexpected and opens up all kinds of new possibilities. While there had been talks on the issue that contributes most to continued tensions between India and Pakistan, we had not known a solution was so tantalisingly close. The information offered up by Kasuri, at a seminar organised as part of the Jang Group-Times of India Aman ki Asha initiative is most encouraging. It suggests that in the first place it is possible for both countries to work towards a lasting solution. The entrenched positions taken in the past have left doubts open on this score. It is also significant that in both capitals there is awareness of the need to settle the matter as one that holds the key to easing the relationship between the two nations. The formula for peace that Kasuri outlined, involving autonomy that stopped short of complete independence and a demilitarisation of the Kashmir territory, also appears – on paper at least – to be feasible. While almost all Pakistanis would favour the accession of Kashmir to their country, 63 years after Partition, this dream has remained elusive. It is said the terms worked out had been opposed only by a single, hard-line leader in Kashmir, while the ex-foreign minister stated the solution worked out had deliberately not been publicised to avoid an outcry in either country. In fact, Kasuri’s revelations show how both sides had reached a level of understanding where they were mindful of public reaction in both countries and were willing to show flexibility in order to ’sell’ the deal to their respective people. As we all know, hawks dominate the debate in many ways both in India and Pakistan and have in the past campaigned ferociously against efforts aimed at peace. Their influence within the structure of the establishment in both countries makes them especially powerful. It is also a fact that much of the justification for maintaining immense armies would evaporate if a solution was indeed worked out in Kashmir.

As far as people go, one must, however, hope the papers Kasuri spoke of are indeed signed in the not-too-distant future. This act could change the fate of the subcontinent and go a long way towards creating security and an escape from abject poverty for a sea of people. While there has been a longstanding debate on whether Kashmir should be tackled first or Confidence-Building Measures put in place to create the right environment for the issue to be taken up, the revelations made by the former minister indicate that a great deal of ground had already been covered. This should motivate the leaders in both Islamabad and New Delhi to move more rapidly towards sealing the deal. It would also encourage those championing people-to-people initiatives on both sides of the border to exert pressure on their governments in order to create a more conducive atmosphere. It is clear that many of the major players in both India and Pakistan are mentally prepared to resolve this long-festering problem. What they require is the backing of public opinion and moral courage and statesmanship. The stakes are extremely high. By moving towards peace they would play a part in the making of history and the settlement of a dispute that has through the decades since 1948 taken a huge toll on both countries, eating into resources, claiming hundreds of lives and keeping the people of Kashmir apart from each other while it is unity they yearn for. http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=235924

The writer is a former Pak ambassador
Trade relations with India have been a subject of contention and controversy for long. Popular opinion in Pakistan dictates that these relations be rejected until the Kashmir issue is settled. Others hold the view that trade and commerce have their own dynamics and may not be held hostage to political differences.

The controversy has been raging for decades. India, besides bilateral efforts, has also used the SAARC platform to secure bilateral trade and transit rights through Pakistan to have access to Afghanistan and the land-locked Central Asian states. The political situation in Afghanistan, involvement of US and other western powers has encouraged India to tie transit rights with the Afghan situation. The US has mounted intense pressure on Pakistan to provide over land route for Indian exports to Afghanistan. Secretary Clinton has openly canvassed hard, telling Pakistan that its “obsession” with India’s hostility is misplaced.

Pakistan has, however, rejected any such thesis. India’s role and policy in the region and its alleged involvement in sponsoring terrorism in Balochistan as well as FATA have created serious concerns regarding Pakistan’s security environment. Pakistan also has concerns about smuggling, massive flow of drugs and arms from Kabul into Pakistan. The prevailing hundi system could also lead financing terrorism in Pakistan.

A trilateral summit was held in May in Washington with presidents of Pakistan and Afghanistan attending the event hosted by Clinton. The deliberations succeeded and a MoU was signed on May 6, committing the “two countries achieving a trade transit agreement by the end of this year.” This agreement had remained under discussion for 43 years without resolution. A euphoric Clinton declared the MoU as an “important milestone” and “historic event” for the countries in the region.

The real intentions and objectives behind this initiative of trilateral summit and signing of the MoU was to extend the transit right to India, surreptitiously. The MoU has certainly been a major triumph and will not only enhance Pakistan’s trade with Afghanistan but also provide its product the market of Central Asian states.

Pakistan has so far succeeded in resisting US pressure to extend India the transit facility. Afghanistan, acknowledging that such an agreement will not be feasible in near future, has accepted Pakistan’s offer for 60 trucks a month for transporting its goods up to Wagah. Both also agreed that in transit, goods would be checked through an electronic tracking mechanism mounted on the vehicles.

Concomitant with these diplomatic efforts by the US to seek concession for India, the bilateral trade between Indian and Pakistan has flourished. With the trade deficit exceeding one billion dollars, Pakistan exports to India have stagnated around $400 million, despite the fact that India has granted MFN status to Pakistan. To deflect diplomatic pressure and keeping in view its political and economic interest, Pakistan should gradually liberalise trade with India but not allow the derailing of the Kashmir issue with its transit route to India. Pakistan may, however, continue to encourage trade with India consistent with our economic and security concerns. Word is that Pakistan has invited three multi-billion Indian companies, TATA, Reliance and Essar, to a meeting of potential investors in the power sector for the development of the Thar Coal Power Project.

Pakistan must exploit its geo-political location by improving transit trade with the Central Asian states and should accelerate transit transport agreements with Central Asian republics to secure its hold in the region. www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=217235

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan has decided not to give any guarantee for gas flows to India through the multi-billion-dollar Iran gas pipeline, it is learnt.

Informed sources told Dawn on Tuesday that Pakistan and Iran had resolved almost all other issues pertaining to the pipeline project, including pricing, project details and quantity of gas to be purchased.

They said that work on the project could be undertaken immediately if Iran did not press Pakistan too much on the guarantee that it had sought to ensure unhindered gas supplies to India through the pipeline.

The sources said Tehran had been told that a friendly project between two neighbourly Muslim countries should not become victim to the interests of a third country and, hence, Iran should not ask Pakistan to guarantee uninterrupted supplies to India given the history of relations between Pakistan and India.

The sources said Iran wanted Pakistan to agree to performance guarantee for gas deliveries if India decided to become part of the tri-nation project. This would require Pakistan to pay penalties to India for gas disruption even in case of sabotage activities or war between the two countries.

The sources said Pakistan was ready to put in place all security measures required to protect the pipeline in the Pakistani territory, but it could not pay the price of gas disruption when its own security was threatened by India itself or any sabotage activity. Pakistan’s defence authorities had also objected to providing iron-clad sovereign guarantees to India for gas supplies through the pipeline crossing Pakistan, the sources added.

India has so far avoided becoming part of the pipeline project although it has been in discussions with Tehran for joining the project and had participated in some trilateral meetings.

The sources said Islamabad required gas supplies from Iran to meet its growing energy needs but it could not compromise its long-term national interests and more so when India and Pakistan could not make any progress to resolve their longstanding issues.

Iran and Pakistan signed gas sales and purchase agreement (GSPA) in June last year under which Islamabad would purchase at least 750 million cubic feet of gas per day (MMCFD) from Tehran’s Southern Pars gas field. The gas supplies could be increased to one BCFD at the time of project implementation, the sources said. www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/front-page/pakistan-not-to-give-guarantee-for-iranian-gas-flows-to-india-610

The Dawn, Nov 3
( The author is Co-chairman, Pakistan-India Citizens Friendship Forum, Karachi)

IN the midst of the attacks in Pakistan by terrorists and militants, the offer of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to resume the peace process – dialogue — with Pakistan came as a pleasant response as we do need to have a sense of security and peace on our eastern border so that more emphasis may be given by security forces to deal with militants within and in our northern region.
The Indian prime minister is reported to have said: “I strongly believe that the majority of people in Pakistan seek good neighbourly and cooperative relations between India and Pakistan. They seek a permanent peace. This is our view as well.
“I call upon the people and government of Pakistan to show their sincerity and good faith. As I have said many times before, we will not be found wanting in our response.
“I appeal to the government of Pakistan that the hand of friendship that we have extended should be carried forward. This is in the interest of people of India and Pakistan.” There may be some conditions placed by India for political reasons but Pakistan’s response like India’s should be that all issues and differences are open for dialogue and discussions as this is the only way forward. The Indian prime minister is reported to have earlier said that we can choose our friends and partners but not our neighbours. This is a fact that applies to both sides so let us live with this in mind.
The recently-concluded ‘intraKashmir dialogue’ held in Srinagar from Oct 9 to Oct 11 organised by the Centre for Dialogue and Reconciliation (CDR), New Delhi, was evidently a success as working groups discussed and came up with recommendations and solutions on:
(i) Across Line of Control (LoC) trade, (ii) LoC cooperation in different fields and (iii) Dialogue process.
Sixty-four participants representing communities and regions of Jammu and Kashmir, Azad Jammu and Kashmir, India and Pakistan participated in the dialogue over a period of three days.
The discussions included the dialogue process, confidence-building measures and expansion of economic cooperation across the LoC. The discussions were encouraging as they dealt with the following :
(i) Facilities for package tours including pilgrimage tourism.
(ii) Educational linkage between regions and reservations of seats in different educational institutions, particularly professional colleges, with free exchange of academicians and students for the purpose of study and research.
(iii) Exchange of artists and arti sans and holding of cultural shows and sport events on both sides.
(iv) Cooperation in the field of media, exchange of newspapers and entertainment channels.
(v) The need for a focused, sustained and uninterpreted dialogue process between India and Pakistan which should not only be result-oriented but time- oriented as well.
(vi) Promotion of trust and confidence between different civil society groups and non-governmental organisations.
(vii) Delinking of terrorism from the dialogue process.
(viii) Restoration of back -channel diplomacy (ix) Promotion of facilities for travel between the two countries.
(x) Condemnation of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations.
Sushobha Barve, the heart and soul of the ‘Centre for Dialogue and Reconciliation, New Delhi, must be congratulated for her dedication over the years and the achievements at the present conference.
A link-up between the Centre for Dialogue and Reconciliation and similar organisations in Pakistan would indeed serve the hopes and aspirations of the people of India and Pakistan for a durable peace. The need of the present time is for a people-to-people contact, freedom of trade, travel, tourism, cultural exchanges, resumption of cricket and other sporting events, exchange of visits by academics, students, musicians, professionals, artists, artisans and exchange of information, books and technology.
We must inspire trust and confidence in each other and leave behind the era of suspicion and mistrust and get down to basics.

This piece appeared as letter to Editor

http://epaper.dawn.com/ArticleText.aspx?article=03_11_2009_006_002

By Tariq Naqash in The Dawn, Nov 2
MUZAFFARABAD, Nov 1: Renowned Kashmiri human rights activist Dr Syed Nazir Gilani has asked Pakistan to stick to the right to self-determination instead of using the vague term of “aspirations” of the people of Kashmir.

“It would be wrong and unwise on the part of Pakistan to skip the urgent need to clarify between accession, self-determination and aspirations on the one hand and unfairly hope to manipulate ‘wishes and aspirations’ through an interchange of political culture on either side of the Line of Control on the other,” he said.

Dr Gilani who is secretary general of London-based Jammu Kashmir Council for Human Rights (JKCHR) was talking to Dawn during his visit to Azad Kashmir.

According to him, ‘aspirations and wishes of Kashmiri people’ was a vague term and ran the risk of diluting and confusing the basic issue.

Kashmir, he said, was not a dispute as ordinarily understood but it was the question of a title of the Kashmiri people to self-determination, embedded in 132-year-old rights movement, charter obligation of 194-member nations of the UN and envisaged in the UN resolutions on the region.

Disputes could fluctuate with the change of political climate but self-determination could not be changed, he said.

He feared that India and Pakistan might not act in fairness and equity if Kashmir was treated as a dispute “because at the time of settlement of disputes, sovereign interests of both nations will reign supreme.”

“The two sides may continue to dispute with each other but they have no right to sandwich us and our inherent right to self-determination for their self-serving disputes,” he said.

He said it would be unwise and unhelpful if India continued to avoid its contractual obligations and international commitments due towards the Kashmiri people.

“The Kashmiri people are equal to any other people under the principle of self-determination and as members of the UN, India and Pakistan have Charter obligations to discharge towards self-determination and equality among people,” he said.

He said death of a generation in Kashmir had caused a serious number deficit in the process of self-determination. “In fact, we have killed the right of self-determination for some time. It is not realisable in the near future and we need to defend this principle at least,” he said.

The JKCHR secretary general pointed out that the position taken by Libya at the 64th session of UN General Assembly and by China to endorse visa to the citizens of the state of Jammu and Kashmir was in accordance with the Charter obligation of the two countries as envisaged in the UNCIP resolutions on Kashmir.

Dr Gilani who was elected at the UN World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna in June 1993 to represent the ‘Unrepresented peoples and nations of the world’ termed the Chinese interest in Kashmir as a ‘significant development.’

China which shared a border with Kashmir had played a lead role during the discussion of Kashmir at the UN and at the 241st meeting of the UN Security Council held on February 5, 1948, making a serious case for ‘pacification,’ he said, recalling that China had also come up with Articles of Settlement on 18 March, 1948 at the 269th meeting of the Security Council.

He said Pakistan should adopt a stand like that of China and also press the OIC nations to follow the suit. “The OIC should also accept Kashmiris as a separate nation,” he said. http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/national/kashmiris-right-to-selfdetermination-should-be-supreme-119

NEW DELHI: When India’s central bank admitted discovering 400,000 fake notes in its currency reserves, many here woke up to the scale of the country’s counterfeit money problems.

Worse still, the embarrassing admission related to a survey from the last financial year to March 2009 and authorities say the problem has since got worse.

Police and the central bank have observed a tripling in the value of notes detected or seized in raids in recent years and authorities are convinced the source of the deluge is a familiar foe across the border: Pakistan.

“We have had some success in tracking the routes and will continue to counter it, but behind this racket is an organised effort in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir,” Home Minister P Chidambaram said recently. “It’s not just a cottage industry.”

Hardly a day passes without news of arrests of currency smugglers, but police say they are only catching the ‘smallfry’, while the ‘big fish’ act with impunity “over the border”.

Many locals here complain of withdrawing fake notes from bank machines and ever-vigilant shopkeepers routinely check the watermarks that are meant to protect the larger denomination 500 and 1,000-rupee notes.

A report this year by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), a state body that tracks money flows, said counterfeit currency was brought in by militants from abroad and then moved through criminal networks.

Smuggling: The DRI said that 130 million high-quality counterfeit notes were being smuggled into India every year and only a fraction were detected.

The security establishment is now clamouring for more scrutiny of India’s banking system and the central bank, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), has instructed nationalised banks to install sorting machines to weed out fakes.

“If the circulation of counterfeit notes was not checked then the economy could be running with over 25 percent fake notes making the rounds across the country,” said analyst Ajai Sahni, executive director of the Institute for Conflict Managment.

The RBI is also running awareness campaigns, even educating schoolchildren to detect fake notes, and plans to introduce a billion special plastic-coated notes that are tougher to counterfeit. http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009\11\02\story_2-11-2009_pg7_4

by Talat Masood
Relations between India and Pakistan received a serious setback after the tragic terrorist attack on Mumbai and have practically remained frozen ever since. Clearly, the incident had a traumatic effect on Indian public and the government reacted by suspending the composite dialogue and a cold war environment has prevailed ever since. The Indian government has taken a strong position that unless Pakistan punishes the perpetrators of the crime and in particular takes action against Hafiz Saeed the chief of Jamaat-ud-Dawa they will not resume dialogue. Islamabad takes the line that it is fully cooperating and is determined to bring to justice the real perpetrators of the crime. Seven terrorists have been arrested and the next trial date is due in the second week of October 2009.

Furthermore, on the basis of our own investigations cases have been registered against twenty others who are currently absconding but efforts are being made to track them down. As regards Hafiz Saeed Islamabad is working on the leads provided but so far the evidence collected is insufficient to take the case to court. To display its good faith the government took serious notice of Hafiz Saeed’s speech of Sept 16, 2009 in which he was inciting people to wage jihad and soliciting charity for the cause, by arresting him under the Anti-Terrorism Act. On court orders he was subsequently released on bail, but is being kept under surveillance.

New Delhi’s prime focus on Hafiz Saeed is deliberate and with a strong political motive. They want to use it for purposes of symbolism and to keep Pakistan on the defensive. It is not that Indian leadership does not realise Pakistan’s predicament in dealing with Hafiz Saeed. Firstly, there is a history of LeT that at one time enjoyed the support of the military and intelligence services for the role that it was playing as a resistance movement in Jammu and Kashmir. It is only as a consequence of 9/11 that the policies changed at the official level but there is still a strong sentiment in favour of the Kashmiri jihadi’s in Azad Kashmir and Punjab. The PPP government is handling the problem politically as well as through law enforcement mechanisms but it has its own limitations.

As the army is overstretched due to its deep engagement on the western front and the government is fragile and politically weak it finds it hard to take on these militants entities upfront at this time.

Domestic politics is dictating New Delhi to take a tough stand against Pakistan. Elections are due in Mahrashrata and in some other states before the end of the year. And Congress does not want to convey an impression of being weak and “yielding”. The media has played no less a role in shaping this policy towards Pakistan. In the past it was mostly the politicians who competed in acting tough and belligerent towards each other. Now it is the media that has gone hyper- nationalist in India with nearly a hundred channels, including the regional ones competing to outdo each other in drumming paranoia against the nuclear neighbour. Regrettably a similar phenomenon is occurring in Pakistan. Any move towards reconciliation is viewed as a concession and subject of severe criticism. Commercial interests of media in India today is an overriding factor influencing and shaping Indo-Pakistan relations.

A more detailed scrutiny will show that long-term economic interests of India are not well served by the current state of tension and uncertainty that surrounds the relationship. The Indian Chamber of Commerce is supposedly unhappy with the overall drop in foreign investment since the Mumbai incident. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh also alluded that India has to maintain a consistent 8 to 9 percent GDP growth to overcome poverty and for that peace between neighbours is a prime prerequisite. By not agreeing to commence serious negotiations, New Delhi risks running into a cul-de-sac. The situation in Afghanistan is also being adversely affected by the Indo-Pakistan rivalry, creating instability in the region and accentuating the threat to US and NATO forces. New Delhi may derive sadistic pleasure by being adamant but serves no strategic objective apart from strengthening the hands of the militants.

Pakistan too must show its genuine sincerity by making measurable progress in pursuing the cases against the perpetrators of the Mumbai crime. The snail pace movement of the court cases is giving an impression that Pakistan’s establishment is foot dragging and not willing to move against jihadi elements. The delay in case of Hafiz Saeed may well be due to valid reasons of insufficient evidence but the way Islamabad is projecting its case it provides an opportunity for India to keep Pakistan on the defensive. The best course for Pakistan is to clearly demonstrate to the world that it is determined to dismantle and disarm the jihadi entities in its own national interest. The blowback from these organisations on the society is already severe and it is incompatible in the 21st century in a totally transformed global environment to allow such entities to co-exist with the state. This decision has to come from within Pakistan’s power structure and not as an act of compliance to either the controversial “Enhanced Partnership Act” or as a result of Indian pressure. http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=202739

Indian Home Minister P Chidambaram tell Indian Express
Excerpts from interaction with editors of the daily
•AMITABH SINHA: What were the specific results achieved during your recent US visit?
Much has been made of the Hafiz Saeed chapter but it was only one small part of the agenda. The main purpose of the visit was to work out an arrangement by which we can share intelligence on a real time basis and then to share analysis of intelligence. We also discussed access to technology. We need technology; we need to improve the skill sets of our people. Then there was the very important need to get to know the important people in the US on a personal basis. I believe the objectives were substantially achieved.

•RITU SARIN: Is there a qualitative difference in the nature of evidence we have against Hafiz Saeed and the evidence we have handed over to Pakistan on other 26/11 accused?
Yes, because Hafiz Saeed did not come to India. All his overt actions were done on Pakistan soil. So all I can give are leads as to what he did. The evidence is on Pakistan soil. If the Pakistan government throws up its hands and says it cannot or it is unwilling to investigate on Pakistan soil, that is a very sad commentary on the Pakistan police.

•AMITABH SINHA: You mean there is no evidence against him as of now and Pakistan will have to investigate further?
There are leads which amount to evidence. For example, when Kasab said Hafiz Saeed asked a man to set up 10 targets and asked each one of them to hit the targets and he was given target No 4 and he hit target No 4 and Hafiz Saeed personally complimented him on his accurate firing, that is a lead bordering on evidence which has to be substantiated by locating the place where the target practice took place, by talking to the people involved, by investigation. If these are confirmed, it is hard evidence.

•PRANAB DHAL SAMANTA: Is there any possibility of a joint investigation with Pakistan?
No more investigation needs to be done on Indian soil. We have filed the chargesheet, the trial is well on its way and is about to be concluded. All the investigation that has to be done now is on Pakistan soil. FBI asked for access, they (Pakistan) denied it. If they did not give access to FBI which is obliged to investigate the attacks since six American nationals were killed in 26/11, what chance do we have?

•AMITABH SINHA: So what is the way out?
I see the tunnel. I don’t see the end of the tunnel yet. We have a Letter Rogatory for Hafiz Saeed. We will follow the processes of law which are available to us. At some point of time, the Pakistan Government, I hope, will fall in line and investigate and help us gain access to the evidence of that investigation.

•RITU SARIN: At some stage, India will have to take a call on the nine bodies of the 26/11 perpetrators lying in cold storage in Mumbai.
What do we do? No Muslim organisation is willing to take those bodies and bury them. Pakistan has grudgingly accepted that some of them maybe Pakistani nationals. There must be some organisation which is willing to come forward to bury them and we are willing to work with them. They are dead and deserve a decent burial.

•MANU PUBBY: There has not been any major terrorist strike since the Mumbai attack. What has changed on the ground?
I don’t think there is any let-up in the plans of militant organisations in Pakistan, especially LeT and JeM. I think they continue to plan and plot. What has changed is that our intelligence sharing is now on a real-time basis and the level of alertness, vigilance of states is much better. We are proactively seeking out cells and modules to neutralise them. Let me say very candidly that while effort plays a big part, luck also pays a big part. We have to be ever vigilant and we have to raise our level of preparedness.

•VAIBHAV VATS: Is there any thought being given to repealing the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA)?
We are proposing amendments to the AFSPA. As far as the presence of security forces in Jammu and Kashmir is concerned, I have said on the border, the army will be present. The paramilitary will be deployed in the hinterland to aid and assist the state police. And the state police will take the frontline in maintaining law and order.

http://www.indianexpress.com/story-print/521990

Washington (PTI): Describing India as its “strong” ally, the United States has said both New Delhi and Islamabad should move beyond the stereotype rivalry against each other and concentrate on how to fight terrorism, poverty and other challenges being faced by the people in the region.
“We have a very strong and growing partnership with India. We have a partnership with Pakistan that we’re trying to improve on. We need to get away from these views of if we are a supporter or we have a good relationship with India, that impacts the relationship with Pakistan,” State Department Deputy spokesman Robert Wood said at his daily press briefing.
Mr. Wood was responding to questions about growing anxiety among the people of Pakistan because of the strengthening relationship between India and the US.
“I understand that that is how people in the region see it, but I think we really need to move away from this type of view in the 21st century,” Wood said, adding that the people of the region have some very difficult challenges to face.
“We are doing what we can to try to support them as they confront these challenges, not only from terrorism but from poverty, illiteracy, drought, disease,” he said.
The US would continue to work with India, Pakistan and other countries to deal with these challenges.
“But we have to move away from these old stereotypes and work with one another in the 21st century to defeat these common enemies that we do face, as I said – drought, disease, hunger, illiteracy, poverty, terrorism,” Mr. Wood said. www.thehindu.com/holnus/000200908120325.htm

When the first Baloch insurgency broke out in 1948 to resist the illegal and forceful annexation of the Baloch-populated autonomous Kalat state with Pakistan, Manmohan Singh – today Indian prime minister – was barely a teenager while his Pakistani counterpart Yousuf Raza Gilani had not even been born to witness the rebellion’s magnitude. Yet, last month, both leaders in Sharm el-Sheikh discussed for the first time the indefatigable Baloch insurgency.

Pakistan has been blaming India for causing trouble in its resource-rich province. Gilani broached the issue with India at a time disgruntled Baloch youth have removed the Pakistani flag from schools and colleges and stopped playing the national anthem. Punjabi officers refuse to serve in Balochistan, fearing they would be target-killed. Islamabad attributes the unrest to ‘foreign involvement’. India is not the first to be blamed. Similar allegations were levelled in the past against the now defunct Soviet Union, Afghanistan and Iraq to discredit the indigenous movement for retaining a distinct Baloch identity. Indian assistance sounds ridiculous given that the Baloch do not share a border, common language, religion or history with India. Hardly has 1 per cent of Balochs have visited India.

The idea of Pakistan never attracted the secular Baloch. Ghose Baksh Bizanjo, a Baloch leader, said in 1947: “It is not necessary that by virtue of our being Muslims we should lose our freedom… If the mere fact that we are Muslims requires us to join Pakistan, then Afghanistan and Iran… should also amalgamate with Pakistan.”

Over the years, Islamabad has applied a multi-pronged approach to deal with Balochista Apart from military operations launched in 1948, 1958, 1962, 1973 and 2002 to quash the rebellion, Islamabad adopted other tactics. First, it kept the province economically backward by denying it good infrastructure, mainly in education and health. Natural gas was discovered in Balochistan in 1951 and supplied to Punjab’s industrial units. The Balochs hardly benefit from their own gas.

Second, Balochs, whom the state views as traitors, were denied representation in the army, foreign services, federal departments, profitable corporations, Pakistan International Airlines, customs, railways and other key institutions. Third, Balochistan has historically been remote-controlled from Islamabad. A Pakistan army corps commander, often a Punjabi or a Pathan, and the inspector general of the Frontier Corps, a federal paramilitary force with less than 2 per cent Baloch representation, exert more power than the province’s elected chief minister. The intelligence agencies devise election plans and decide who has to come to the provincial parliament and who should be ousted.

Fourth, Islamabad has created a state of terror inside Balochistan. Hundreds of check posts have been established to harass people and restrict their movement. Forces and tanks are stationed even on campuses of universities. Fifth, national and international media are denied access to conflict zones in Balochistan. Several foreign journalists were beaten up supposedly by intelligence agencies personnel or deported when they endeavoured to report the actual situation. Sixth, international human rights organisations are denied access to trace the whereabouts of some 5,000 ‘missing persons’. Pakistan is also in a state of denial about the existence of around 2,00,000 internally displaced persons in Balochistan.

Seventh, Islamabad has been engaged in systematic target killing of key Baloch democratic leaders. Ex-governor and chief minister of Balochistan, Nawab Akbar Bugti, 79, became a victim once he demanded Baloch rights. Balach Marri, a Balochistan Assembly member, was killed to undermine the movement. In April this year, three other prominent leaders were whisked away by security forces and subsequently killed.

Eighth, Pakistan has pitted radical Taliban against secular and democratic Baloch forces. The state is brazenly funding thousands of religious schools across the province with the help of Arab countries to promote religious radicalisation. Elements supportive of Taliban were covertly helped by state institutions to contest and win general elections. They now enjoy sizeable representation in the Balochistan Assembly to legislate against the nationalists and secular forces.

Ninth, Islamabad has been using sophisticated American weapons, provided to crush Taliban, against the Baloch people. This has provided breathing space to Taliban hidden in Quetta and weeded out progressive elements. Finally, Afghan refugees are being patronised to create a demographic imbalance in the Baloch-dominated province.

Baloch leaders are critical of many democratic countries for not doing ‘enough’ to safeguard a democratic, secular Baloch people. I asked Bramdagh Bugti, a Baloch commander, about the India link. He laughed and said, “Would our people live amid such miserable conditions if we enjoyed support from India? We are an oppressed people… seeking help from India, the United States, the United Nations and the European Union to come for our rescue.”

The Baloch movement is rapidly trickling down from tribal chiefs to educated middle-class youth aggressively propagating their cause on Facebook and YouTube. This generation would understandably welcome foreign assistance but will not give up even if denied help from countries like India. The Baloch insist their struggle was not interrupted even at times when India and Pakistan enjoyed cordial relations.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-4878167,prtpage-1.cms