Trump Victory Will Mean Defeat To Democracy

By

-

November 4, 2024

Donald Trump — The Republican nominee has already warned of 'bloodbath, if he isn't victorious in the Nov 5 US presidential election. At the same time, his presence in the White House is going to be a big boost to the autocratic regimes around the world.

The US presidential election on Nov 5 is now just around 24 hours away with a neck and neck race between Democrat presidential nominee Kamala Harris and Republican Donald Trump. It is one of the most unpredictable elections in the US history, as various polls are showing a narrow victory for Harris with a margin of nearly 1% in countrywide votes.

Also read: The Eerie Similarities Between Trump and Imran

At the same time, political historian Allan Lichtman, known for his impressive record of rightly predicting nine of the last ten US presidential elections since 1984, says Harris will be the winner. Millions of the registered American voters will chose the next president and decide the country’s future. Meanwhile, it is seven swing states – including Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin – which will determine who enters the White House for the next four year-term.

The US foreign policy equally influences the states both likeminded and competitors for better or the worse.

Given the high stakes, policymakers and political analysts around the globe, not just the Americans, are keenly following the election campaign. The critical role of the US in international politics is the reason behind this worldwide interest. No one can deny the fact that the US foreign policy equally influences the states both likeminded and competitors for better or the worse.

Pakistan is also closely following the US election 2024. But the PTI is employing all available means in the US to support Trump. Reason? The PTI is hoping that Trump as the US president will play his role as the most powerful chief executive in the world to get the party founder – Imran Khan – released. It is despite the fact that Imran Khan is facing serious charges related to corruption and misuse of power. These issues are self-created, as Imran Khan and his party are themselves responsible for resolving these issues rather than relying on the US election result.

Also read: Awami League Believes A Victorious Trump Will Bring Back Hasina

Meanwhile, the American voters on Tuesday will decide who is going to enter the White House. The occupant will not only run the United States, but his or her policies are going to affect the security, economic and political dynamics across the world. Therefore, the question is how Trump will affect the US domestic politics and international relations, if he wins over his rival? Trump is a stubborn populist leader as Harris has best described him while speaking to her supporters at a rally. “He is someone who is increasingly unstable, obsessed with revenge, consumed with grievance — and the man is out for unchecked power.”

The dawn of November 6 will show the winner – Trump or democracy and the US values.

The fact of the matter is Trump is not willing to accept his defeat as per the US norms and traditions. He may incite violence and instigate his supporters to target the Capitol Hill or other public assets in a repeat of January 6 attack.

While speaking to his supporters in Ohio early this year, the Republican nominee warned that there would be a ‘bloodbath’ if he is not re-elected in the November election. He is running the election campaign with slogans like “America first” and “Make America Great Again”, but fails to consider the values and ideas responsible for the United States’ leading role in post-World War II era. The US established ‘international liberal order’ based on institutions and multilateralism as well as values of democracy, human rights and individual freedoms. But Trump’s words and actions are negating these merits of the US.

Trump’s victory won’t just be a defeat of Harris as the Democrat nominee, it will also indicate the loss at domestic and external fronts for the US. Firstly, a victorious Trump will represent the defeat of inclusive culture and values in the US society. He will promote far right-wing and violence based on color, class and religion, thus causing further polarization among the Americans. In short, Trump’s presence in the White House will adversely affect democracy and democratic norms not just in the US but also at the global level.

Secondly, his passion for ‘America First’ will promote nationalism and encourage other states like China, Russia and North Korea. Certainly, a big blow to cooperation and engagement at international level. Thirdly, his authoritative mindset gives pretext to the autocratic regimes for suppressing human rights and denying basic freedoms.

Trump is using rhetoric to persuade the American voters that under his administration country will regain its great status. He has promised to fix the US domestic issues related to health, economy and illegal immigration. In external relations, he promised to end the Russia-Ukraine war within 24 hours. Similarly, he is talking about peace and stability in Middle East by resolving Israel-Palestine issue. But he has not addressed the main issue of ‘how’ – while making all these tall claims.

As the election day approaches, the unpredictable personality of Trump indicates that his victory will result in the US downfall along with its ’rules-based order’ at internal and external fronts. The dawn of November 6 will show the winner – Trump or democracy and the US values.

Why America Must Elect Kamala Harris

By

Muhammad Ali Baig

-

November 4, 2024

0

Kamala Harris is practically the best choice for the American voters, as Donald Trump, if elected, will damage not only the US foreign policy but also democracy.

Perhaps, there is only one burning question in America’s domestic politics – who will be the next US president? The answer to this question is worth probing as there are only two available options, former president Donald Trump (Republican) or incumbent Vice President Kamala Harris (Democrat). Now, the Americans must choose between a highly controversial man and a progressive woman.

Currently, the US is embroiled in manifold problems equally at the domestic as well as international fronts. There is no doubt that President Joe Biden’s term could not bring peace and stability in the international relations; however, he at least tried to restore the confidence of American allies and the future of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Biden failed to deter Russia from invading Ukraine and his administration seemed entirely confused over the Israeli aggression in the Middle East. Although, Biden tried to mend America’s relations with China; nonetheless, the outcome of his efforts remained shallow.

The American voters now have to choose between two contenders, an already tested and highly-controversial Trump and Harris – a new candidate who is better in her conduct and articulate in her policies. I hope that they choose the latter and I will also explain why they need to do so.

Trump’s Illiberal Foreign Policy:

It would be astonishing for the readers to know that Trump started campaigning for his next term as the US president just a few minutes after taking office in January 2017. According to the PBS News, Trump filed the paperwork for his 2020 re-election campaign. He was aiming at remaining in power for at least two terms. In fact, he argued many times that Franklin D Roosevelt was elected for four terms and why he couldn’t be.

In other words, Trump was trying to transform US democracy into an autocracy, where he could enjoy unrestrained power, without any chance of accountability and transparency. Many have rightly argued that Trump wishes to exercise power like Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese Premier Xi Jinping.

Arguably, Trump has caused the same damage to the American people as Imran Khan did in Pakistan. Both are demagogues who stirred political temperature to the boiling point, sowed the seeds of extreme political polarization, and claimed to be the master of everything.

Middle East:

According to veteran US journalist Bob Woodward, Harris after meeting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in July this year, reportedly said that “I will not stand silent as the people of Gaza suffer.”

Apparently, Biden’s Israel policy is not just Pro-Israel, but is Pro-Netanyahu. Such a policy is a nightmare not just in terms of its outcome; instead, such a policy is against the American values and the values of the Democratic Party.

Woodward argued in his latest book “War” that Trump is so impressed by Putin that he is actually under his influence. He also said that after the outbreak of Covid-19, Trump sent Putin some Covid testing machines made by US pharmaceutical company Abbott for his personal use. At that time, the Russian scientists had been working on such machines and were short on supply. The book mentioned that Putin and Trump have talked to each other for at least “seven times,” since Biden’s assuming of office.

Why America Must Elect Kamala Harris:

It is very important to understand that why the American voters must elect Harris as the next US president. The reason is simple, yet very difficult to articulate and understand. The United States, as we know it today, stands upon the pedestal of its values and traditions, and factually, no individual has tarnished the American values more than Donald Trump.

If the voters don’t realize the dangers emanating from Trump to the American democracy and its political system, then there are chances that its adversaries including Russia, China, Iran, and the North Korea could capitalize on the opportunity and mobilize their assets to meddle in the US elections. James Comey, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) former director, couldn’t truly investigate the Russian interference in the 2016 election or perhaps he was hindered to do so. Later, Comey’s removal from office attested the latter.

There are reports that the American adversaries had started such activities long before Harris’ nomination to run for president. Such activities include using the social media platforms and advertisements encouraging voters to elect Trump. It is also a possibility that the hired hackers could infiltrate into the voting machines, resulting and affecting the outcomes.

The famous American filmmaker Michael Moore in his documentary “Fahrenheit 11/9” held President Barack Obama responsible for Trump’s rise and argued that “Obama paved the way for Trump”.

For Moore, Obama’s poor handling of contaminated drinking water scandal in Flint, Michigan, was the real cause of Trump’s ascent to power.

The world has not forgotten the initial days of Trump’s presidency, especially with the unprecedented initiatives like the travel ban and his White House press secretary Sean Spicer.

Conclusions:

America is a liberal nation that intends to uphold the liberal values and its statecraft has pursued liberal hegemony to maintain its international status. It prefers to pursue liberalism in its domestic politics, and envisaged a realist outlook in its international dealings. However, quite contrary to American history, Trump’s term as the US president saw an ‘Illiberal’ foreign policy, and an ambiguous domestic approach, that was neither liberal nor realist.

On March 15, 2024, at a campaign rally, Trump said that “if I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a bloodbath for the country”. It is understandable that Trump could go to great lengths to solidify and hold power, as he refused to accept his defeat at the hands of Biden in November 2020, and later incited his supporters to attack the Capitol Hill on January 6, 2021.

Apparently, Harris is not a realist and likely will not adopt a foreign policy pivoted upon realist principles. Nonetheless, in comparison with Trump, Harris is a sane as well as a rational person, and we can well assume that she is the best choice America has got.

Awami League Believes A Victorious Trump Will Bring Back Hasina

By

Saleem Samad

-

November 3, 2024

0

Most Awami League leaders, sympathizers, sycophants, cheerleaders, and partisan journalists who fled abroad or kept a low profile are upbeat about the US presidential election.

It would surprise many what and why an election held in another continent has to do with Bangladesh or who will be the winner – the Democrats or the Republicans!

Republicans have no stake in Bangladesh, but the Democrats, indeed, have some in the interim government and especially a very friendly relationship with Nobel laureate Dr Muhammad Yunus.

The Biden administration was able to take over some offshore oil and gas exploration in the Bay of Bengal after the Yunus administration took charge of the “Naya Sarkar” (new government).

Trump in a post shared on X wrote: “I strongly condemn the barbaric violence against Hindus, Christians, and other minorities who are getting attacked and looted by mobs in Bangladesh.”

Yunus’ journey with the Democrats began when Hillary Clinton met him through his former American wife in the United States. Both Bill Clinton and Hillary were spellbound to hear the microcredit program of Yunus for the poor. He was convinced that the poor could be trusted for repayment of cash loans. Yunus affirmed the Clintons that “they [the poor] are good borrowers”.

When Clinton became Arkansas governor for the second time, banks for the poor were launched and proved successful with jobless Black communities in certain areas. Now there are hundreds of organizations in the United States, which extend microcredit to the poor, thus benefitting millions of them.

Since then, Yunus has become a ‘blue-eyed boy’ of the Democrats. He was ordained with the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Barack Obama. Later, he was awarded the prestigious Congressional Gold Medal.

On Friday (Nov 1), US presidential candidate Donald Trump in a post shared on X wrote: “I strongly condemn the barbaric violence against Hindus, Christians, and other minorities who are getting attacked and looted by mobs in Bangladesh, which remains in a total state of chaos.”

Also read: Hasina Is Toast, But Will There Be An Election in Bangladesh?

He reiterated that the Republicans will “protect Hindu Americans against the anti-religion agenda of the radical left” and “we will also strengthen our great partnership with India and my good friend, Prime Minister Modi”.

This message squarely embarrassed the Yunus administration. Soon after a series of violent incidents, he swung into action which reduced the racial tension between the radicalized Muslims and the Hindus. The Hindu community leaders in collaboration with the civil and police administration have successfully held the largest Durga Puja festival all over the country, largely without further hindrances.

However, Trump’s statement on X, formerly known as Twitter, seems to have given fresh impetus to the Awami League Leaders and sympathizers who have openly lent their support to Trump in the world’s most talked about presidential race.

Trump in his message has raised two key crucial issues: the persecution of the Hindus in Bangladesh and an all-out praise of his “good friend Prime Minister Modi”.

If Trump enters the coveted Oval Office again, the Awami League supporters believe there is a hope that Yunus will no more be running the affairs of Bangladesh by the end of this year.

Amid this wishful thinking, the Awami League sycophants think that Modi, who is walking on a tight rope. will help the exiled Sheikh Hasina return to Bangladesh and retake her kingdom.

But it doesn’t stop there, as their wish list also says that all the leaders and protesters of the Monsoon Revolution will either flee for their safety or land in prison to be prosecuted for treason. Of course, Yunus will also face treason charges, with his old cases (which the present government has quashed) also reopened. He would certainly be awarded capital punishment and publicly hanged at the Padma Bridge.

The Awami League sycophants think that Modi, who is walking on a tight rope. will help the exiled Sheikh Hasina return to Bangladesh and retake her kingdom.

The Awami League sympathizers living abroad and others who have been keeping a low profile have taken to social media and threatening those they feel as enemies of the Awami League and Hasina, warning them to face the consequences of supporting the Yunus administration.

What will happen if Kamal Harris wins? There is a common belief that the fate of Awami Leaguers will be sealed forever.

Meanwhile, the Bangladeshi diaspora and those living in the country as a whole are divided over the support for Kamala and Trump.

Two things have to be remembered. Usually, the US foreign policy does not change overnight, like in South Asian countries, unless the issue in question is a challenge to national security and a threat to American citizens, said Ambassador Humayun Kabir who was in Bangladesh’s mission (2007-2009) in Washington DC.

Amid the humanitarian crisis in Gaza or Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and other global issues, Bangladesh is not on the priority agenda to be discussed at the US State Department and policies fine-tuned, Kabir concluded his argument.

Whoever wins on the November 5 US presidential election, Washington DC will continue to hold its patience for a transition to democracy in the event of a free, fair and inclusive polls being held in Bangladesh. Until then, the impatient Awami League’s leaders and cheerleaders will have to hold their breath to return to power through a third-party intervention.

There is no possibility of Awami League launching a nationwide anti-government movement. The leaders and their sycophants are busy protecting their looted stash of cash, said political historian and writer Mohiuddin Ahmad.

The Awami League and Chhatra League are demoralized political forces and have lost steam for organizing an effective anti-government movement. They will not be able to stand in a face-off with the tens of thousands of student activists who toppled their 15 years of kleptocratic regime, remarked Ahmad.

Investment Opportunities in Pakistan: Barriers And Solutions

By

Uroosa Khan

-

November 2, 2024

1

Foreign Investment — Foreign investment is required to provide employment opportunities to millions of youth in Pakistan. But it will remain elusive unless the government is able to provide a conducive environment.

Pakistan is one of the strategically located states with deep seaports, a very good climate, and rich natural resources and has a lot of investment potential. However, when it comes to having higher inflows of foreign investment, it is trailing behind the neighboring countries such as India and Bangladesh. India is being marketed as the ultimate destination for business and Bangladesh has proved to show remarkable economic growth, whereas Pakistan is much behind in gaining such confidence from both local and foreign investors.

The Challenges:

This article shows why all the inherent strengths of Pakistan could not yet make it an attractive place for investment, and how it requires some policy change in improving its investment climate.

Political Instability:

The first and foremost reason behind Pakistan’s failure was that of undeterred persistent political instability coupled with bad governance. Successive governments might not complete their tenures; and because policy keeps changing, investors can rarely predict what will come the next day. Since most long-term investments have long gestation periods and, therefore, require a high level of confidence that regulations or incentives won’t change abruptly.

Weak governance structures as well as the lack of any effective checks and balances make economic growth difficult. Inconsistent policies and weak implementation discourage foreign companies to enter or expand in Pakistan.

Insecurity:

At the same time, security concerns make the issues even worse for foreign firms. Despite internal security advances, the insecurity is at the top of investor lists. The fears about terrorism and regional conflicts create anxiety amongst investors who may shift investment to more secure India or other countries in South Asia. These safety issues result in an opinion regarding Pakistan as a high-risk country for foreign investment. Due to this reason, companies avoid trying out the business opportunity available in Pakistan.

Red Tape:

Bureaucratic red tape and complex regulation are also inhibitors. Inefficiency is often reflected by bureaucracy in Pakistan, coupled with excessive documentation and slow clearance, creating serious hurdles both for homegrown and international businesses alike. Long-drawn processes and complex regulation increase time and costs attached to putting up or increasing operations. Moreover, an environment brought about by bureaucratic hurdles more often than not encourages corruption, as a company strives to circumvent long procedures, which chases off the genuine investors.

Insufficient Infrastructure:

Inadequate infrastructure and power shortages pose important issues for the country. Pakistan remains at the developing stage; thus, the country’s transport and energy infrastructures lag far behind their competitors in the region. These are a big problem for industries, mainly due to constant power outages and very costly energy sources, thus not really appealing to foreign investors. India and China invested massively in infrastructure and established reliable systems to support industry and commerce. On the other hand, Pakistan must build a stable infrastructure network to be able to attract foreign investment, especially in manufacturing.

Lack of Financing:

Furthermore, the availability of access to finances is also somewhat scarce. At the same time, high interest rates are discouraging the domestic private sector form introducing innovative products. The country’s financial sector is undeveloped and cheaper credits are not in hand. In reality, the lack of readily available funding is a peculiar challenge to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) which constitute economic backbone for diversification and growth. High interest rates and inflation make borrowing very expensive, thus reducing a firm’s ability to invest in expansion or modernization. It discourages further the would-be foreign investors who have the potential to venture into a market whose constraints do not allow its prospects to grow.

Also read: Weaker Currencies Mean Higher Fuel Prices Despite Cheaper Oil

The Changes:

There have been some good steps taken recently towards attracting foreign investment. Setting up the Special Investment Facilitation Council (SIFC) is one positive development that focuses on the attraction of capital, especially from the Gulf States in areas like agriculture, technology, and manufacturing. Civil-military cooperation gives foreign investors more confidence, as historically, Pakistan’s military institutions were more trusted than the civilian government.

With the assistance of SIFC, Pakistan has signed more than 30 MoUs with Saudi Arabia, which would inject billions of dollars into the economy. Further examples are Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s visit to Qatar, which exemplify Pakistan’s quest to obtain investment from a broad pool of sources. Yet the potential of such efforts could only be translated into an actuality when the government takes measures towards dealing with the very core causes that scare investors.

Transforming Pakistan into more of an investment-friendly destination would require policy reforms in the following measures.

Political stability and policy continuity are a prerequisite for undertaking long-term goals that stretch further than individual governments and make people confident. Major projects by an independent economic body having consistency in the policies could provide investors with the required stability. It will also mean that economic policies of any government are to be backed by cross-party consensus and thus there won’t be a sudden shift. Finally, governance structure should be transparent and accountable with proper check and balance mechanisms.
Meanwhile, Pakistan also requires improvement in security. In this connection, securing the regions around industrial centers will enhance the government’s prestige and safeguard the interests and safety of investors. To achieve this goal, public-private security infrastructure partnerships may also work towards providing a safer environment, especially to assure foreign investors.
Another crucial reform is streamlining bureaucratic processes to create a business-friendly regulatory environment. Simplifying procedures, red tape removal and digitization of government services will ease a lot of business operations. There could be a “one-window” facility for investors with centralization of permits and approvals that otherwise result in lengthy documentation procedures. Anti-corruption measures within the bureaucracy, including transparency in approvals and the penalty for misconduct, will improve efficiency and reduce corrupt opportunities, making Pakistan a more attractive investment location.
Infrastructure investments and resolution of the energy crisis are also critical. Pakistan needs heavy investment in energy and transport sector to enhance the competitiveness of its industry. Public-private partnerships could be critical in bridging infrastructural gaps, whereas renewable energy initiatives will decrease dependence on expensive imports, thus reducing the cost of doing business. More importantly, it is also going to propel sustainable economic growth.
Equally important is access to finance by local businesses. Easy access to credit by SMEs, venture capital, and low-interest loans will be instrumental in achieving economic growth and innovation. The decline in the rate of interest along with bringing inflation under control will encourage borrowing, thus uplifting the potential of domestic businesses to grow while also attracting foreign investors.
At the same time, Pakistan needs to focus on developing special economic zones and industrial parks, which will provide various tax incentives and relaxed laws for specific sectors like manufacturing and information technology. The simplified tax regime will also ease the regulatory burden of businesses, thus making Pakistan attractive to foreign investment.

Pakistan has enormous potential for attracting foreign investment, but huge challenges are hampering the progress. The challenges should be met with a prolonged, multi-dimensional policy approach for boosting investors’ confidence and creating a stable, secure, and efficient business environment.

Therefore, political stability and streamlined regulatory processes, infrastructural improvement, and greater access to financing can bring a robust environment for foreign investment in Pakistan. With public-private partnerships, a strong commitment to governance reforms, and long-term policies in place, the future of the investment landscape of Pakistan lies in being transformed to serve as a guarantee for long-term economic growth and stability.

Gilgit Baltistan: From Accession to 77th Independence Day

By

Ijlal Haider

-

November 1, 2024

0

Gilgit Baltistan remains one of the few regions governed under a unique administrative framework. People in Gilgit Baltistan first celebrate the Independence Day on August 14 alongside the rest of the Pakistanis. After three months on November 1, they observe Gilgit Baltistan Independence Day, remembering the sacrifices of heroes of the Gilgit Scouts who liberated the region from Dogra Raj and acceded to Pakistan.

This year marks the 77th Independence Day of the region, making it essential to highlight its complex historical background to better understand the region’s ongoing marginalization and mainstream political alienation.

Colonial Period:

Before Dogra’s incursion into the high mountains, Gilgit Baltistan was fragmented into several small kingdoms. In Baltistan, the Maqpon, Yabgo, and Amacha were predominant, while in the Gilgit region, the Mir of Hunza and Gohar Aman of Yasin held sway. The State of Jammu and Kashmir’s boundaries were first defined in The Treaty of Amritsar, signed in 1846 following Maharaja Ranjit Singh’s defeat in the first Anglo-Sikh war.

Martin Sokefeld a German anthropologist has extensively examined the modern history of Gilgit Baltistan. In his research paper, Not Part of Kashmir, but in the Kashmir Dispute, argues that most of the region lies to the west and north of the Indus River. However, the eastern side of the Indus River is specified in Article 1 of the treaty.

Following Dogra’s incursions in the region, it failed to establish stable control due to its challenging terrain. Gohar Aman, the ruler of Yasin, expelled the Dogras from Gilgit twice, in 1848 and 1852, and held control of the region until he died in 1860. Subsequently, with the arrival of the British, in 1879 and 1889 the area was made Gilgit Agency, largely due to fear of a Russian invasion during the ‘Great Game’.

Between 1879 and 1935, the region was under dual control: the British-administered Gilgit Agency and the Dogra Raj’s Wazir Wazarat, each with separate jurisdictions. In 1935, the British acquired the region from the Dogras on a 60-year lease. However, on July 30, 1947, the British canceled the lease and returned control to Governor Ghansara Singh of the Dogra Raj. The following table illustrates the power-shifting patterns throughout the century.

Changing Modes of Dominion in Gilgit, 1842-47 (Page 944)

1842	First incursion by Kashmiri troops over Gilgit	1935	lease of Gilgit Agency by the British, and end of dual control.
1846	Conquest of Gilgit by Raja Gohar Aman	July 30, 1947	Administrative shifting from Gilgit Agency to Governor Ghansara Singh of
1860	Recapture of Gilgit by Kashmiri troops, after Gohar Aman’s death	Nov 1, 1947	Establishment of ‘The Islamic Republic of Gilgit’, after liberation against Dogra Raj
1879-81	The first time the Britishers established an Agency in Gilgit, parallel with Kashmiri administration.	Nov 16, 1947	Accession to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
1889	Reestablishment of Gilgit Agency, under dual control system.

The Freedom War:

The state of Jammu and Kashmir consists of five entities: Jammu, Kashmir, Ladakh, Gilgit, and Baltistan. Among these, only Jammu was the Hindu majority, and all others were Muslim-dominant entities except Ladakh where Muslims and Buddhists are mixed. Prem Nath Bazaz a prominent Kashmiri scholar, argued in his book, History of Struggle for Freedom in Kashmir, that the Dogras viewed Jammu as their home due to its Hindu majority, while regarding other regions as subjugated entities, thereby establishing Dogra imperialism. Raja Gulan Singh was unpopular in other entities of the Jammu & Kashmir state because of his brutal rule.

During the partition, Maharaja Hari Singh decided to join India, which resulted in the deadliest revolt against him by the Gilgit scouts. The Gilgit Scouts were a paramilitary force established in 1913 by the British government, composed of local people. Major Brown, the military commander who wrote The Gilgit Rebellion, emerged as a leading figure during the liberation war. Following a fierce revolt, the Gilgit Scouts successfully liberated the region from Dogra control, and on November 1, 1947, it was declared an independent state known as ‘The Islamic Republic of Gilgit’ which lasted until November 16.

The Question of Accession:

There is a lack of credible evidence regarding the period of the Gilgit Scouts’ revolt and the 16 days of an independent state. However, Major Brown cited several telegrams and conversations as primary observers in his book. He argues that the Government of Pakistan did not make any decisions, despite receiving frequent telegrams and requests from the officials of the newly established state of Gilgit. On November 16, Pakistan sent Sardar Alam Khan, a tehsildar, as a political agent in Gilgit and officially acceded the region to Pakistan. The Baltistan region was liberated in 1948 by the Gilgit Scouts and the local people.

Post-Accession Developments:

The post-accession period has been very unfavorable for the people of Gilgit Baltistan. Sardar Alam Khan assumed control of the region and swiftly enforced the Frontier Control Regulation (FCR), a draconian colonial-era law designed for tribal areas. On April 28, 1949, the Government of Pakistan signed a secret treaty with representatives of Azad Kashmir, known as the ‘Karachi Agreement’. This agreement marked the first attempt to alter the status of Gilgit Baltistan and associate it with the Kashmir issue. Unfortunately, in this agreement, the fate of 2.3 million people was decided without their representation. The table below illustrates the post-accession development in Gilgit Baltistan.

Administrative Developments in Gilgit Baltistan (Page 42)

Year	Legislative promulgation	1972	FCR abolished
1947	Front Crime Regulations (FCR)	1975	Creation of the Northern Areas Council (NAC)

1949	The Karachi Agreement 1949	1994	Legal Framework Order’s (LFO) promulgation
1950	Ministry of Kashmir Affairs and Northern Areas	1999	Supreme Court’s Judgement (Al-Jihad vs Federal Government)
1952	Political Resident’s appointment	2009	Empowerment and Self-Governance Order
1967	Political Agent’s appointment	2018	Self-Order Rule 2018
1969-70	Creation of the Northern Areas Advisory Council (NAAC)	2018	Self-Order Rule 2018

Since 2018, Gilgit Baltistan has been governed under a self-governance order that concentrates powers in the hands of the federal government. The people of Gilgit Baltistan are entangled in an unending constitutional dilemma. Like Azad Kashmir, Gilgit Baltistan lacks governance and legal autonomy, with no presentation in the National Assembly and vice versa.

Seventy-seven years have passed, yet the local people hold the same patriotic spirit they had in 1947, despite ongoing negligence by the federal government. On August 14, the streets and bazaars are adorned with Pakistani flags, as people wear badges and chant slogans. However, the people of Gilgit Baltistan need to move beyond dance and fireworks as the focus of their November 1 Independence Day celebrations. The Day should be observed as a reminder to the government officials of the true purpose behind accession to Pakistan and the sacrifices made by their forefathers.

Pakistan MPs Snub US Congress Members

By

Editorial

-

October 31, 2024

0

It is now very much clear that Imran Khan and his PTI can go to any extent to further their nefarious designs as the pro-Israel and pro-India US Congress members, known for their anti-Pakistan views, are their last hope. And more importantly, they are seeking help from the same Biden administration they had accused of removing their government in April 2022.

That’s why, 160 parliamentarians in Pakistan, in a dispatch addressed to Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, have denounced the views expressed in the letter by 62 US members of Congress and urged them to desist from interfering in the internal matters of Pakistan in favor of Imran Khan and his party.

One cannot miss the fact that the letter written by the pro-India and pro-Israel Congress members appeared just before the US presidential election.

Nobody should be surprised by the reaction of the Pakistani parliamentarians who rightly described the move at Capitol Hill as a reflection of “a skewed view of realities” which “greatly exaggerates baseless political narrative of one particular party” – the PTI.

The response given by Pakistani parliamentarians comes days after 62 US Congress members wrote a letter to President Joe Biden and called for securing the release of Imran Khan – an incarcerated convict who is also facing the possibility of military trial over the May 9 botched coup attempt.

Although some circles in Pakistan have been calling for ignoring an organized campaign launched against Pakistan and its national institutions in name of “democratic right”, everyone knows about the role of lobbying in the US politics.

One cannot miss the fact that the letter written by the pro-India and pro-Israel Congress members appeared just before the US presidential election. Also, the Muslim voters can play a decisive role in at least three battleground states. Moreover, a good number of the overseas Pakistanis in the US, who are mostly pro-PTI but also affluent, have seemingly contributed a good amount of donations to the election campaigns of different candidates – both Republican and Democrats. Interestingly, the majority of the US Congress members who wrote the letter in support of the PTI happen to have a pro-Israel, Pro India and anti-Pakistan record.

The US Congress members are oblivious of the fact that Imran Khan and his party have been championing the cause of terrorist groups like Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Hence, the reason behind PTI’s anti-Pakistan lobbying is evident given that the Americans will choose their next president as well as all the House of Representative members and 34 senators on November 5.

Moreover, Pakistan has every right to remind Washington about its Russian interference claims. If Russian interference in the US elections and meddling in internal politics is bad, then how can these US Congress lawmakers justify poking their noses in the domestic affairs of Pakistan.

The elected representatives, therefore, in Pakistan have asked the US Congress members through their prime minister “to separate facts from fiction and critically view the political motives behind the campaign to discredit credible political process in Pakistan and undermine its democratic institutions”.

Meanwhile, the government must now take effective steps to respond to the social media apparatus of Imran Khan, which is doing everything to spread anarchy in Pakistan. That is the reason why the parliamentarians have talked about the post-truth world.

“Pakistan, like any other democracy, grapples with challenges of post-truth era which have been further complicated by politics of cult-followership and polarization”, which is exemplified in the persona of lmran Khan, says the letter of the Pakistani parliamentarians.

If Russian interference in the US elections and meddling in internal politics is bad, then how can these US Congress lawmakers justify poking their noses in the domestic affairs of Pakistan.

One wonders how the “well-informed” US Congressmen have no clue of Imran Khan introducing “political violence and criminal intimidation against political rivals as well as state institutions”. They have forgotten about the May 9 attacks and repeated violent protests. Most definitely, the US citizens will not be allowed to attack Pentagon and the State Department, let alone the Governor of Maryland or Northern Virginia bringing in their state police and National Guards to invade their national capital, Washington DC. We have seen how the culprits of January 6, 2020 were arrested and sentenced.

Also read: Afghan Taliban, Al Qaeda Asked For FATA Revival. Imran Said Yes

However, the most interesting thing about this episode is the fact that the US Congress members are oblivious of the fact that Imran Khan and his party have been championing the cause of terrorist groups like Taliban and Al Qaeda and the PTI founding chairman had even gone to the extent calling Osama bin Laden as a martyr. The troubling question is: how would these Congressmen and Congresswomen justify the US war on terror, if Imran Khan’s “apologist comments about Taliban, misogynic views on gender-based violence, contempt for parliamentary democracy and disrespect for diplomatic norms” don’t matter.

We can understand that the US Congress members needed donation dollars to fire up their November 5 election, but asking the same Biden administration to help Imran Khan, who, according to PTI’s earlier stance, removed their government through Donald Lu, is simply laughable.

Russia-Ukraine War Exposes Dual Nature Of Indian Foreign Policy

By

Mahnoor Saghir

-

October 31, 2024

0

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been focused on developing close ties with the US as part of the efforts to encircle China. However, New Delhi at the same time maintains close ties with Russia.

Enamored with proclaimed “strategic autonomy”, the Russia-Ukraine war has exposed the dual character of Indian foreign policy. It shows that New Delhi is interested in only securing its interests even if the allies have to pay the price. India plays with both parties and aims to receive maximum benefits from them, which are in conflict with each other. This approach is evident from the Russia-Ukraine war, where New Delhi is buying oil from sanction- ridden Moscow yet covertly supplying ammunition to Kyiv. However, it is not the only instance where India has played a double role; the country has adopted a similar posture in its relations with rival states.

Regardless of the neutrality claims, New Delhi has been supplying a diverse range of artillery and mortar shells as well as explosives to Kyiv. The list comprises 155mm, 122mm, 125 mm projectiles and others. So far, India has delivered 10,000 shells of 120mm and 125mm caliber rounds based on information from Indian and European officials and commercially available customs data. In this regard, three Indian defense manufacturers Yantra, Munitions India, and Kalyani Strategic Systems delivered the ammunition to Ukraine.

Moreover, India is also indirectly supporting Ukraine’s war effort. A recent disclosure showed India’s state-owned munitions firm providing about 500 tons of explosives to Rheinmetall, a German defense manufacturer. Rheinmetall filled the explosives into different ammunition and then sold the finished products to the Ukrainian military.

Astonishingly, the company has been prohibited from doing business with any Indian firms due to corruption charges since 2012. The agreement was reached through a Spanish company called Expal, which Rheinmetall had already bought. The maiden cargo shipment of 144 tons was delivered in October 2023. Two more deliveries were sent, and the penultimate one reached Germany in March 2024.

Meanwhile, third parties have supported India in supplying defense items to Ukraine. These include key US allies in Europe – Italy, Czech Republic, Spain, and Slovenia – which initially imported the Indian ammunition and explosives and then diverted them to Kyiv. India did not stop the transaction at any point because this provided an opportunity to New Delhi to prove its allegiance to the US. Moreover, New Delhi signals Washington that Moscow is no longer its strategic ally and India prefers the Western camp.

One the other hand, Indian government is playing a similar role when it comes to the Israel-Palestine conflict as well. It not only supports Palestine’s statehood claim while at the same time retaining cordial relations with Israel. In addition, Indian firms are covertly providing ammunition to Israel to augment its war efforts. This fact was unveiled when the Israeli air force dropped bombs on ‘a refugee camp’ in Gaza, which turned out to be made in India. This established the duplicity in India’s foreign policy behavior.

Similarly, India maintains warm relations with Iran, regardless of the US sanctions targeting the country. In contrast, New Delhi signed strategic agreements with Washington, which does not even share diplomatic ties with Tehran. Likewise, India is leveraging benefits from both Iran and Israel, which have been in an undeclared state of war against each other since October 2023.

Amid this, the critical question is whether India’s support of Ukraine’s war effort will impact its long-standing relationship with Russia. The Kremlin has already expressed serious reservations. Russia highlighted the subject during both countries’ foreign ministers meeting, which was held earlier this year in Kazakhstan, according to a Russian official source.

Although India is trying to counter the situation by denouncing the facts, the situation is much more severe than stakeholders in New Delhi anticipated. India’s act has eroded the trust between the Kremlin and Rashtrapati Bhawan. Although the Indian Act has put a dent in their bilateral relationship, in the near future, both sides will cooperate because Russia is still the largest arms exporter to India. Similarly, India is the largest buyer of Russian oil. This convergence of interests will hold them together for a while unless the West ends its sanctions on Russia or finds other alternatives.

India’s supply of ammunition to Ukraine surprised many in the realm of international relations. However, it was nothing new but a repetition of what New Delhi has been doing since independence. This behavior is part of India’s foreign policy, based on its philosophy of running with the hare and hunting with the hounds. Given this trajectory, Indian allies may exercise caution in their future dealings with India as the country’s foreign policy deviates from its stated pledges. Moreover, India’s partners may be concerned because of New Delhi’s willingness to grab opportunities at the expense of its close allies and friends. This raises serious questions about India’s status as a reliable partner, which will likely impact its future relations.

What if Russia Is More ‘Putinized’ After Putin

By

Ambassador Abdul Basit

-

October 30, 2024

0

The 16th BRICS summit was held in the Russian city of Kazan on the Volga River last week. President Vladimir Putin, the impeccable host, was visibly exuberant. The overall message was loud and clear. Putin is neither isolated internationally nor does he have any intention to succumb to Western pressure on Ukraine.

Close to 35 countries’ heads of state or government attended the conclave. To the added chagrin of the West, even UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres was also present, drawing strong ire especially from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. He was of the view that it did not behoove the UN Secretary-General to have accepted an invitation from a person who was wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for crimes against humanity.

While almost all guest leaders talked about Ukraine, none even implicitly blamed Russia for the war. Putin’s long press conference at the end of the summit was a treat to watch. He responded to many hard and direct questions with clarity and confidence and parried many with diplomatic panache.

Putin is highly unlikely to accommodate Zelensky in any meaningful way unless he sees all-out defeat or economic meltdown or unmanageable domestic unrest.

Now the question is how will the Ukraine war end? Will Putin or Zelensky ever agree on a solution that is seen as one-sided and coercive? Or, is a mutually-acceptable modus vivendi still possible?

When Russia moved into Ukraine on February 24, 2022 under the “special military operation”, most thought the government in Kyiv would collapse in a week or so, Zelensky would flee the country, and Kremlin would be able to install a pro-Moscow dispensation. However, all calculations proved wrong.

Instead of surrendering, Ukrainians under the leadership of Zelensky, stood up to fight Russia. The West, led by the US, was quick to provide military assistance to Ukraine with the hope that the Russian aggression would be repulsed and that even Putin could be removed from power by building pressure from within. These also turned out to be elusive. And today, the conflict seems to have been gridlocked with apparently no off-ramp to take an exit.

China and Brazil did try to mediate with proposals which, inter alia, called for an immediate ceasefire. This very idea became a non-starter from the Ukrainian side which contended that agreeing to a ceasefire would tantamount to accepting the Russian aggression and its occupation of a vast Ukrainian land in the Donbass region. Additionally, Ukraine also insisted that the Russian occupation of Crimea in 2014 must also be reversed. Moscow while understandably ready to an immediate ceasefire demurred to any suggestion that would result in withdrawal of its forces from the Ukrainian territory. Putin might eventually show some flexibility vis-à-vis some areas in the Donbas region, but Crimea in any case would remain nonnegotiable.

On the other hand, Zelensky is now coming under increasing pressure as the Western fatigue in supporting Ukraine militarily and economically has been growing as the conflict is dragging on without an end in sight. Even the “Summit for Peace” on Ukraine held in Switzerland in June this year, without Russian participation, could not make any headway beyond rhetoric and platitudes. Another such conference is now being planned in the Netherlands early next year which will in all likelihood be more of the same.

Of late, Zelensky has been in a hurry as he can see that in case of Trump’s victory Ukraine would lose sympathetic ears in Washington DC. And without the US support, other countries may start dithering as we are already witnessing in the case of some NATO and EU countries, especially Hungary and Ireland. Conscious of this, Zelensky presented his five-point “Victory Plan” to President Biden in a meeting in the White House in September.

Zelensky is now coming under increasing pressure as the Western fatigue in supporting Ukraine militarily and economically has been growing as the conflict is dragging on without an end in sight.

The plan in essence sought US permission to allow Ukraine to use heavy weapons and long-range missiles supplied by the US and other NATO countries to hit military targets inside Russia. Any such move would definitely further escalate the war as Putin has threatened to even use tactical nuclear weapons should the need arise. Reportedly, such weapons have already been deployed even in Belarus to create the necessary deterrence.

Zelensky also proposed that NATO should invite Ukraine forthwith to join the transatlantic alliance. At this point, all NATO members do not see eye to eye. Even Germany, which is providing substantial assistance to Ukraine, is skeptical. It seems that Biden is biding time and may still oblige Zelensky should Trump win the upcoming US presidential election.

In his ongoing election campaign, Trump repeatedly said that he would be able to end the war in Ukraine even before taking oath as president on January 20, 2025. This is what is worrying for Zelensky as Trump would likely go to the hilt to press him for accepting an immediate ceasefire sans any meaningful concession from the Russian side. Trump’s running mate JD Vance has also publicly opposed military assistance to Ukraine, saying that Taiwan was far more important for the US.

It goes without saying that Putin is highly unlikely to accommodate Zelensky in any meaningful way unless he sees all-out defeat or economic meltdown or unmanageable domestic unrest. Indubitably, Russia is suffering huge human losses in the ongoing war. According to some reports, close to 100,000 Russian troops have so far been killed and over 300,000 wounded in the war. This is massive and definitely unsustainable for Russia. No wonder, there are reports of about 3,000 North Korean troops joining Russians, especially in the Kursk region where Ukraine was able to capture some Russian territory this year.

Territorial integrity of states is enshrined in international law and the UN Charter. From a purely legal standpoint, Russia’s occupation of eastern Ukraine cannot be justified.

This unexpected Ukrainian move and success helped Zelensky to show to the international community, especially its Western allies where the public support to Ukraine has been diminishing, that neither Russia is invincible nor Ukraine is losing the war. The fact that Moscow has still not been able to push the Ukrainian troops back to the border betrays Russia’s military limitations. It is also adding more complications to the conflict and finding an end to it ever more difficult if not impossible.

Territorial integrity of states is enshrined in international law and the UN Charter. From a purely legal standpoint, Russia’s occupation of eastern Ukraine cannot be justified. Nevertheless, the world does not work on the basis of law, especially when powerful states see their primary interests at stake. Otherwise, Israel would have long been punished for it massive war crimes in Gaza, and now in Lebanon. It is the US which should also be held responsible for both the ongoing wars in Ukraine and Gaza.

NATO, a legacy of the Cold War era, should have been dismantled with the collapse of the Warsaw Pact as the erstwhile Soviet Union disappeared from the world map. Instead, NATO was not only retained but also expanded closer to the Russian borders. Zelensky’s enthusiasm to join NATO was also misplaced. He should have never poked the bear. By doing that he has put Ukraine in a cleft stick.

Russia for all its constraints and weaknesses will never reconcile to the idea of Ukraine joining NATO. Be that as it may both Putin and Zelensky now need face savers. Ukraine must give up joining NATO and vacate Kursk; and Russia must vacate the territory it has occupied in the eastern Ukraine since the war began in February 2022. As for Crimea, Russia will never oblige and Ukraine will have to digest this hard reality for now without giving up its claim.

There is no other solution to end this war unless Ukraine and the West have the appetite to do whatever it takes. Even then Russia cannot be expected to let it go so quickly and without wreaking unsustainable havoc. Alternatively, turn the war into a low-level conflict and wait for Putin’s era to come to an end. But what if the West and Ukraine find Russia more “Putinized” after Putin.

Dr Yunus Gets Stuck in Dhaka Traffic, Bumps Into Rising Prices

By

Saleem Samad

-

October 28, 2024

0

Celebrated Nobel laureate Dr Muhammad Yunus was appointed as Bangladesh interim government chief adviser in early August after a students-led uprising toppled former prime minister Sheikh Hasina.

But for the third month in a row, the people, who welcomed the change, feel the pinch. They have taken to social media to criticize the government for failing to control the vegetable prices, law and order, corruption and notorious Dhaka traffic.

The price hike of essentials like groceries, eggs, rice, and lintels has skyrocketed, putting them beyond the reach of not only lower-middle-income groups but also the middle class.

As a result, the media has also joined in amplifying the silent voice of the disadvantaged population, especially daily wagers and low-income groups, who are the majority.

The egg prices as well as that of onions and green chilies have reached a point where the government allowed traders to swiftly importing from India to arrest the trend.

Dhaka Traffic Jam:

Meanwhile, people in Dhaka continue experiencing excruciating traffic jam daily, with commuters including students, stranded for several hours on the roads. And the net result is massive loss of human hours, imported transport fuel and the commuters’ anger.

But the main reason behind this mess is the absence of a mass transit system that could cater of the needs of millions. One can feel the pain of the around 23 million people living in Greater Dhaka, who are at the mercy of a rogue transport sector.

The public buses flout traffic rules and use old vehicles – which also cause air pollution – as they do not park these at designated bus stops. Not to speak of charging fares at their free will.

Hence, the people in Dhaka have now started calculating distance in “time”, not kilometers, because even a one-kilometer journey may require 30 minutes.

Last week, the Yunus government announced that all 25-year-old public transport to be taken off the road or face reprisal, in an attempt to tackle the situation.

However, the unrest in garments export industries over wage disputes and unpaid arrears has gradually subsided. The industrial actions by agitating workers were mostly against their factory owners.

In Bangladesh, there are two categories of export-oriented factories: Red and Green. There have not been any labor-management disputes and industrial actions in factories marked as Green.

These factories strictly follow international compliance which the factory owners, buyers, laborer rights groups and fair-trade networks have to religiously obey or their exports would face boycott.

Inefficient Government Machine:

Unfortunately, the law-and-order situation is not as satisfactory as expected. The military troops are deployed at key police stations in the cities and towns. In the aftermath of the Monsoon Revolution, mass absence of the police force impacted law enforcement. An overwhelming majority of police force from constables to officers were recruited on the basis of being affiliated with Awami League.

The entire police force went into hiding to escape the wrath of the angry students for the deaths of nearly 1,500 during the bloody Monsoon Revolution.

It means extortion, protection money and corruption have emerged after a brief hiatus. As reported in mainstream media, the underworld has changed hands – from Awami League hooligans to the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) members just days after Hasina fled the country.

Mohiuddin Ahmad, a political historian, says the BNP goons in the absence of an effective government are fishing in troubled waters. With the law enforcement agencies and civil administration missing on the ground, the student leaders who overthrew the autocratic regime had to come to the aid of restoring law and order.

During the first few weeks of the student uprising, the stock exchange felt an earthquake. However, the mafias, who control the financial centers, have either fled the country or lying low draped with political color. But the passage of time, the stocks have gradually stabilized, with broad smiles on the faces of investors.

U-turns:

On the other hand, the government on several occasions has backtracked on its decisions during its three months in office, casting doubts about the civil bureaucracy.

Most of these decisions concerned the appointments for crucial government positions after hundreds of pro-Hasina senior and junior officials were shunted out. This backpedaling was a result of the pressure created by social media outcry and public perception amid a shifting political landscape.

Political analysts interpret this as signs of inconsistency, a lack of experience and determination, and the uncertainty troubling the government as it struggles to strike a balance between diverse demands.

The government’s U-turns sometimes appeared to be a result of having to navigate diverse pressure groups and maneuver around different preferences of the political forces.

Prof Al Masud Hasanuzzaman, who teaches government and politics at Jahangirnagar University, describes this approach as sign of “indecision”.

“The government had to take many decisions hastily because time was of the essence and thus some mistakes were made,” he recently told an independent newspaper, The Daily Star.

He said that the government was in in search of experienced and efficient officials to run the administration, but often had to give in to people’s demands.

Most importantly, 84-year-old Dr Yunus is managing a temporary administration, to tackle what he has called the “extremely tough” challenge of restoring democratic institutions.

Awaiting Reforms:

“None of us are aiming at staying for a prolonged time,” Dr Yunus reiterated in an interview published by the largest circulated newspaper Prothom Alo.

“Reforms are pivotal,” he added. “If you say, hold the election, we are ready to hold the election. But it would be wrong to hold the election first.”

Without reforms in democratic institutions, like the electoral system, the announcement of an election roadmap would bring back the same old legacy of vote fraud, vote buying, intimidating the opponent candidates, influencing the polling officers and the worst of all – the filthy rich acquiring party nomination through highest bidding.

Most of the political parties have given nod to Dr Yunus’ plan to hold elections after much-talked-about reforms. A couple of the interim government advisers have indicated that the ousted Awami League will also have to participate to hold inclusive elections.

To depoliticize the key pillars of democracy, the Yunus administration has constituted 10 commissions for recommending reforms in judiciary, law enforcement, election system, constitution, anti-corruption, public administration, and other sectors.

Hasina’s government has been accused of politicization of the judiciary, civil bureaucracy, and law enforcement as well as organizing flawed elections, to dismantle democratic checks on its power.

Dr Yunus said he had inherited a “completely broken” system of public administration that needed a comprehensive overhaul to prevent a future return to autocracy.

However, these hiccups are not because of the revolutionaries nor Dr Yunus has gotten enough time to do their homework on how to run a government. They also could not predict that Hasina’s kleptocracy regime would cave in 36 days of violent anti-government street protests, the political historian said.

In the post-revolution period, history says, the revolutionaries in different countries went through trial and error while riding on the back of a crazy horse, remarked Mohiuddin Ahmad.

Black Day to Bright Future? Pakistan’s Strategic Play for Kashmir

By

Dr Khurram Abbas

-

October 27, 2024

0

Kashmiris are fighting for having an opportunity to exercise their right to-self-determination. However, the demographic changes triggered by the Modi government after abrogating the Article 370 have complicated the situation.

FABRICATING THE INSTRUMENT OF ACCESSION:

October 27, 1947 was the beginning of a long and dangerous dispute between two South Asian countries – Pakistan and India. New Delhi landed its troops in Srinagar on that day based on a claim that Maharaja Hari Singh had signed Instrument of Accession (IOA) on October 26, 1947. However, prominent international historians and various have widely disputed and rejected New Delhi’s primary argument about the Kashmir dispute.

A day earlier on October 25, a rebellion led by Maj Khurshid Anwar and soldiers from the Poonch region overpowered the Maharaja’s army, forcing Hari Singh to flee to Jammu with valuable belongings. Historical evidence, including reports from British officials, indicates that Hari Singh reached Jammu on October 27. This timeline challenges the likelihood of the Maharaja being in a position to sign the IOA on October 26 as claimed by the Indian government.

Alastair Lamb in his book ‘Birth of a Tragedy’ argues that the absence of IOA casts serious doubt on the authenticity of the document.

Furthermore, VP Menon, the Secretary to the Government of India, claimed in his book ‘The Story of the Integration of Indian States’ [pages 399-400] that he along with Mehr Chand Mahajan went Jammu by air on October 26 where Maharajah signed IOA. However, British records and Menon’s own movements in Delhi contradict this claim.

Menon reportedly attended a defense meeting in Delhi on the morning of October 26 and attempted to fly to Jammu that afternoon, only for the flight to be cancelled. By 5:00 pm, he was seen meeting the British High Commissioner in Delhi, making it unlikely he had been to Jammu to witness any signing of IOA on October 26, 1947.

Interestingly, India has consistently denied requests by researchers and historians, including BBC correspondent Andrew Whitehead and British historian Alistair Lamb, to access the original IOA. The document remains classified by India, and the government has cited reasons such as it being “stolen” or “lost”.

Alastair Lamb in his book ‘Birth of a Tragedy’ argues that the absence of IOA casts serious doubt on the authenticity of the document, while suggesting the document may have been fabricated after Indian forces had already entered Kashmir.

ROLE OF UNITED NATIONS:

Since 1948, Jammu and Kashmir has been on the agenda of UN Security Council – just three years after the United Nations was establishment. Since then, 18 resolutions have been passed by the Security Council related to ‘India-Pakistan Question’ out of which several are directly related to the Jammu and Kashmir dispute. The two most significant resolutions – 47 of 1948 and 91 of 1951 – call for a free and impartial plebiscite under UN supervision to determine the will of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

The UN Security Council Resolution of 91 of 1951 and 122 of 1957 clearly state that “holding elections in the dispute state is not equal to ascertain the wishes of the Kashmiri people”.

However, India has consistently rejected to implement these resolutions and tried to impose its will on the Kashmiris through coercive inhuman tactics. Later, New Delhi has tried to complicate the entire situation in its own favor through unilateral actions of August 5, 2019. It has shifted from one goalpost to another. First, New Delhi used to call Jammu and Kashmir dispute a ‘bilateral issue’ and after August 2019, India is trying to convince the world that the issue even doesn’t exit.

Also read: SCO Summit: It’s Time For Indo-Pak Stalled Dialogue To Resume

Recently, the Occupied Jammu and Kashmir has gone through electoral process after a decade. However, the UN Security Council Resolution of 91 of 1951 and 122 of 1957 clearly state that “holding elections in the dispute state is not equal to ascertain the wishes of the Kashmiri people”.

PAKISTAN AND KASHMIR DISPUTE:

Resolution of Jammu and Kashmir dispute has been one of the cornerstones of Pakistan’s foreign policy. Islamabad has attempted to use nearly every internationally accepted method of resolving disputes. It has pursued a number of diplomatic strategies, including a bilateral strategy through the Shimla Agreement. In a similar vein, Pakistan made an unsuccessful attempt to use a third nation as a mediator.

Islamabad’s stance on the dispute is primarily based on strong legal and legitimate arguments.

Islamabad tried to use the “bottom-up approach” under Ziaul Haq and Rajiv Gandhi, discussing less complicated political issues like Siachen, Sir Creek, visa regulations, and enhancing people-to-people connectivity in a hope that a supportive atmosphere would force India to settle the Kashmir dispute.

From IK Gujral to Manmohan Singh, Pakistan’s senior military and civilian leaders tried to change India’s stagnant view of Jammu and Kashmir in the 1990s and 2000s by using Confidence Building Measures (CBMs) and composite dialogue.

A future roadmap related to Kashmir strategy requires a more robust and proactive approach. Pakistan should take a more non-traditional strategic stance in the Jammu and Kashmir dispute. Islamabad must develop a long-term strategy for dealing with Jammu and Kashmir.

Also read: The China-Led SCO And Strained Indo-Pak Relations

Four guiding principles should form the basis of Pakistan’s strategy for Occupied Kashmir including development of international partnerships, domestic economic and political consolidation, strategic patience to avoid unilateral concessions for New Delhi, and a whole-of-nation approach.

Similarly, Pakistan will take charge as non-permanent member of the UN Security Council in January 2025. Islamabad needs to take full advantage of this role and consistently highlight Indian atrocities at the forum. During this tenure, Pakistan needs to convince the UN Secretary General to appoint his special representative on Jammu and Kashmir.

To conclude, it is safe to claim that after 77 years, shifts in local demographics, legal resolutions by UN Security Council, bilateral agreements between India and Pakistan, indigenous freedom struggle, stringent laws have added layers of complexities in the Jammu and Kashmir dispute. However, Islamabad has shown consistent commitment to the resolution of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute.

Islamabad’s stance on the dispute is primarily based on strong legal and legitimate arguments, which has been widely accepted by the international historians, several governments and UN Security Council. Islamabad should convey to the world that no other issue has influenced India–Pakistan relationship more adversely than the Jammu and Kashmir dispute. At the same time, no other issue except Jammu and Kashmir has potential to spiral out of control between nuclear neighbors of South Asia.

Write For Us!

Opinions, Analysis, and Rebuttals.

StratheiaPolicy Journal

A Global Digital Think-Tank on Policy Discourse.