[4/17, 10:05 PM] sainqalabi: گلگت پیک کے نام پر انسان دشمن ملک چین دنیا کے ساتھ گلگت پر قبضہ کرنا چاہتے ہیں۔ چائنہ کے عظائم خوفناک ہیں۔ پاکستان اس وقت۔چین کے چنگل میں آچکا ہے۔ گلگت بلتستان کے لوگوں کی آخری اُمید آمریکہ سے۔ ہم آمریکہ سے اپیل کرتے ہیں کہ وہ چین کو روکنے میں ہماری مدد کرے۔ چین انسانی حقوق کا دشممن ملک ہے جو اپنے کاروبار کو توسعی دینے کے لئے کسی بھی حد تک جاسکتا ہے۔ پاکستان کی چین کا طرف بڑھتا بڑھتا جھکاو خطرناک ہے۔ کرونا وائرس کے بعد چین کے عزائم سے دنیا آگاہ ہوچکی ہے۔ اب وقت آچکا ہے کہ دنیا آمریکہ کی قیادت میں چین کو روکے ورنہ دیر ہوجائے گی۔ چین پہلے ہی ریاست جموں کشمیر کے بڑے حصے پر قابض ہوچکا ہے۔ سی پیک کے بہانے چین سابقہ گلگت ایجنسی اور بلوچستان کو ہضم کرنا چاہتا ہے۔ سوست ڈرائی پورٹ اور گوادر ہورٹ پر چینی قبضہ اس کا واضع ثبوت ہے۔ہم چین کے مقابلے میں آمریکہ کو اپنا اتحادی سمجھتے ہیں اور ہم سی پیک پر آمریکہ کے موقف کے ساتھ ہیں۔
Friday, April 17, 2020
Saturday, December 20, 2014
Tuesday, December 16, 2014
Thursday, November 13, 2014
Thursday, October 16, 2014
Thursday, June 12, 2014
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Dear Readers,
The interior ministry of Pakistan were put my name to Exit Control List ( ECL) under the advice of GB home department.in march 2011.FIA close my passport into their custody on 5th August 2011 .In December 2011 i closed all of my activities because of these issues. But still my name is on ECL from last two and half years which is totally illegal, unconstitutional and this is basic human right violation. From GB i am only person who was on ECL from two and half years. I am unable to understand this thing. In past interior ministry put names of different political activists from GB, Kashmir and Baluchistan. But there name were review and remove with in 6 months.
But the officials are not ready to Remove my name from ECL till now.
Is this is fair.........?.
Why they are still not ready to review their decision regarding to remove my name from ECL...?
Traveling is my basic right.Which was given by international human rights charter.
If they are not ready to remove my name from ECL they should provide the concrete resion.
Shafqat Inqalabi
The interior ministry of Pakistan were put my name to Exit Control List ( ECL) under the advice of GB home department.in march 2011.FIA close my passport into their custody on 5th August 2011 .In December 2011 i closed all of my activities because of these issues. But still my name is on ECL from last two and half years which is totally illegal, unconstitutional and this is basic human right violation. From GB i am only person who was on ECL from two and half years. I am unable to understand this thing. In past interior ministry put names of different political activists from GB, Kashmir and Baluchistan. But there name were review and remove with in 6 months.
But the officials are not ready to Remove my name from ECL till now.
Is this is fair.........?.
Why they are still not ready to review their decision regarding to remove my name from ECL...?
Traveling is my basic right.Which was given by international human rights charter.
If they are not ready to remove my name from ECL they should provide the concrete resion.
Shafqat Inqalabi
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Map
of our Region
1 November 2009
The 'Home Department' of Gilgit-Baltistan expelled Col.
Wajahat Hasan Mirza (Chairperson: APNA – All Parties National Alliance) and his
young brother Col. (R) Nadir Hasan Mirza of Gilgit-Baltistan Thinkers Forum.
Both were sent to Islamabad on a PIA flight.
26 April 2010
26 April 2010
Pakistani
authorities arrested political activists from Gilgit city. Amongst those
arrested included activists from both Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Jammu Kashmir
(AJK) - the term used for Pakistani occupied Kashmir (whose main cities are
Muzaffarabad and Mirpur). Many of them were forcefully exiled from
Gilgit-Baltistan for a period of three months while some were detained in
Gilgit district jail. Those who were driven out of their own homeland included
Col. Wajahat Hassan Mirza (Chairperson: APNA – All Parties National Alliance),
Col. (Rtd.) Nadir Mirza (Chairperson of Gilgit-Baltistan Thinkers Forum), Mr.
Farooq Umar Advocate (Chairman: KNM - Karakoram National Movement), Shafqat
Inqalabi of Balwaristan National Front (BNF), along with kashmiri guests Raja
Mazhar Advocate, Sardar Saghir (Chairman: JKLF - Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front
- Amanullah group), Professor Abdul Razzaq Khan Khalique (Spokesman for APNA),
Arif Shahid (Secretary General: National Liberation Front – now Chairman of
renamed JKNLC – C for Conference), Sabir Kashmiri (Senior Vice-chairman of JKLF
- Rauf Kashmiri group), Farooq Niazi (human rights activist) and Mehmood Baig (former
President of NSF - National Students Federation). Hotels and houses in Gilgit
were raided by police around midnight without search warrants. Apart from
Shafqat Inqalabi, all of those mentioned above were arrested and sent to
Islamabad. Meanwhile, Shafqat Inqalabi was arrested and sent to JIT (Joint
Investigation Team) Gilgit for 36 hours before being 'deported' (from his home
territory) in a police van to Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa.
22 March 2011
Nawaz Khan Naji, Yawar Ali, Manzoor and other BNF activists
were arrested in Ghizar. Naji was bailed out after four days and his colleagues
were released on bail by the civil court after twenty days of incarceration.
26 March 2011
Gilgit-Baltistan's
Home Department made out an anti-state case against Tahir Ali Tahir of BNF
under 124(a). They arrested him from Gahkuch and transferred him to district
jail Ghizar from where he was bailed out by the Court Chief after spending two
and a half months in prison.
5 August 2011
Pakistan's FIA (Federal Investigation Agency) confiscated travel documents of Shafqat Inqalabi at Lahore air port. His name had been put on Pakistan's notorious ECL (Exit Control List) by its' interior ministry, thus preventing him from travelling abroad to pursue an independent livelihood. The government of Pakistan through it's clandestine agencies had already destructed his construction business in AJK. He cannot even travel in Pakistan as his ID card was confiscated too. Shafqat continues to live as a prisoner in his own homeland.
5 August 2011
Pakistan's FIA (Federal Investigation Agency) confiscated travel documents of Shafqat Inqalabi at Lahore air port. His name had been put on Pakistan's notorious ECL (Exit Control List) by its' interior ministry, thus preventing him from travelling abroad to pursue an independent livelihood. The government of Pakistan through it's clandestine agencies had already destructed his construction business in AJK. He cannot even travel in Pakistan as his ID card was confiscated too. Shafqat continues to live as a prisoner in his own homeland.
Other recent examples of political victimisation:
- Engineer Manzoor Hussain Parwana (GBUM - Gilgit Baltistan United Movement) was arrested under ppc 121 and ppc 124(a) in Gilgit and imprisoned for a month before being bailed out a couple of days before last Eid.
- The Labour Party's Baba Jan was arrested by Police of Hunza-Nagar after public agitation in Hunza incident under anti-terrorism law and has been kept in jail for over a month now.
- Senior leftist leader Engineer Aman Ullah was also arrested and subsequently bailed out in Hunza recently.
- Engineer Manzoor Hussain Parwana (GBUM - Gilgit Baltistan United Movement) was arrested under ppc 121 and ppc 124(a) in Gilgit and imprisoned for a month before being bailed out a couple of days before last Eid.
- The Labour Party's Baba Jan was arrested by Police of Hunza-Nagar after public agitation in Hunza incident under anti-terrorism law and has been kept in jail for over a month now.
- Senior leftist leader Engineer Aman Ullah was also arrested and subsequently bailed out in Hunza recently.
Thanks to tanvir sab senior civil society activist and KASHMIR JUSTICE FORUM
Monday, October 17, 2011
Details of Non-locals residing, conducting business and acquiring land/property in Gilgit-Baltistan
It
is considered that the 1927 State Subject Rule promulgated by the last
Dogra Maharajah Hari Singh in the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir
has been violated, suspended or held in abeyance in Gilgit Baltistan,
particularly since the Bhutto era in the early 1970's. The figures cited
below have a margin of error not more than 10% of each figure quoted.
Thanks to Sahaafi.net and Tanvir sab civil society activist
District wise data (%)
DISTRICT
|
CITY
|
BUSINESS
|
PROPERTIES
| ||
Gilgit
| |||||
Gilgit
|
60.00%
|
35.00%
| |||
Jiglot
|
50.00%
|
20.00%
|
Ghizer
|
Gahkuch
|
70.00%
|
30.00%
| ||
Gupis
|
60.00%
|
50.00%
| |||
Yasin
|
20.00%
|
10.00%
| |||
Chatorkhand
|
20.00%
|
15.00%
|
Diamer
|
Chilas
|
35.00%
|
40.00%
|
Baltistan
|
Skardu
|
20.00%
|
10.00%
|
Ghanche
|
Khapulo
|
15.00%
|
8.00%
|
Hunza-Nagar
|
Aliabad
|
15.00%
|
0.00%
| ||
Sost
|
40.00%
|
5.00%
|
Astore
|
Eidgah
|
20.00%
|
15.00%
|
Major
flour mills, petrol pumps, hotels and transport companies also belong
to non-locals. While 80% of trade with China trade at Sost border (in
Hunza-Nagar), 60% of timber business also belong to non-locals. Needless
to add, the demography of Gilgit-Baltistan is at serious risk, if not
already heavily undermined.
Sunday, September 4, 2011
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Saturday, August 20, 2011
A petition for freedom, identity, economics and dignity from Gilgit Baltistan
The Interior Ministry of Pakistan has put Shafqat Ali Khan (sobriquet: Inqalabi), an activist from district Ghizer in Gilgit Baltistan on it's exit control list (ECL) without prior notice. The federal investigation agency (FIA) prevented him from boarding a flight from Lahore to Dubai on the 5th of August. The aforementioned agency confiscated his passport, national ID card and other travel documents whilst questioning him for two and a half hours. Their apparent reason, allowing him to travel out of Pakistan's jurisdiction could impede their national interest.
Whether or not the State of Pakistan's national interest takes precedence over the life and liberty of a human being who is not their constitutional citizen or indeed obliged to defer to their 'national interest', should open up a lively debate. Meanwhile, Shafqat describes the incident as a 'shameful act on the part of Pakistan'. He has been under constant vigilance and endured persistent harassment from the Pakistani State's clandestine agencies. He thus considers his life to be under threat, particularly since filing a writ petition in Pakistan's Supreme Court on the 4th of March 2010, against the State Executive’s 'Empowerment and Self-Governance' Order for Gilgit-Baltistan, enacted on September the 9th 2009.
“I am a political activist not a terrorist”, Shafqat points out as he beseeches the 'International Community' to take serious notice of this gross violation of his basic human right to travel. He also implores human rights organisations to save his life and for fellow activists to play a positive supportive role.
Profile of Shafqat Ali Khan
He was born on the 4th of March 1978 in Village: Bubur, Tehsil: Punial, District: Ghizar in Gilgit Baltistan. He resides with his family in Gahkuch city which serves as the district headquarters of Ghizar. His father (Niat Bahadur) works as a government contractor and his family is considered amongst the most renowned political families of District Ghizar.
Shafqat passed his matriculation in 1996 from Al Azhar model school in Gilgit before moving to Hyderabad in Sindh (Pakistan). He completed his FSC exams in Pre-Engineering from Sir Ghulam Hussain Hidayat Ullah Higher Secondary School in Hyderabad. He was nominated for admission in Civil Engineering at the University of Engineering & Technology in Taxila from where he graduated in 2003.
Shafqat Ali Khan's political career commenced in 1997 whilst still a higher secondary level student. He worked as president of GQM (a district based organisation in Ghizer that stood against corruption) from 1997 to 1999 before becoming President of Karakorum Student Organisation - Punjab Zone in the same year up to 2002. Chairing this organisation in the capacity of Central Chairman from 2003 to 2005. Shafqat also played an active role in university union politics from 1999 to 2003. His active role in the national politics of Gilgit Baltistan commenced soon after graduation. A period of self-exile in Kabul (Afghanistan) ensued from December 2003 to June 2004.
Political pursuits included contesting district council elections twice. Shafqat Inqalabi has also written numerous articles on Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan focussing on their pending national question. He married in 2009 and has an 18 month old son.
Shafqat narrates that the Government of Pakistan through it's agencies began harassing him about six years ago. Their pursuit intensified after he submitted the writ petition against the Pakistani State (4th of March 2010) in it's apex court. When they (the agencies) failed in bringing him round to their line of thought, that infuriated them further. Wary of the impunity they enjoy, Shafqat Ali Khan kept the media informed whenever he endured the ire of Pakistan's secretive state apparatus - via press conferences in Islamabad, Muzaffarabad (AJK) and Gilgit. Please read the following for some background:
http://www.countercurrents.org/tahmed150410.htm
In April 2009 what outside observers may rightly find bizarre, the Home Department of Gilgit Baltistan expelled Shafqat from his homeland and banned his re-entry for three months. His right to earn a living was cruelly devastated by the very same agencies in May 2009 when they halted his construction business in Muzaffarabad and prevented other contractors from conducting business with him. He lost 17 lakh rupees (equivalent to around 10,000 US dollars) in the project that he was forced to abandon.
In an effort to quell his freedom of speech and association, the agencies had carried out a well rehearsed tactic that had served them so well in the territories they control but do not legally own - since 1947 - namely economic suffocation. Building momentum to raise the 'national question' of Gilgit Baltistan and Kashmir, in order to advance his motherland's identity and hence dignity using the tool of freedom was viciously halted. The agencies didn't stop at that, they made his life difficult for him even in his home territory.
In the manner of any other human being who desires freedom, recognition of their identity, the right to earn an honest living and the dignity to enjoy equal rights, Shafqat Ali Khan's options to exist with his conscience intact became impossible. Leaving his beloved homeland and the adjoining State that occupies and rules it, was and is the only feasible option left to him and he's been denied that too.
Finishing with a recap of the event on the 5th of August (earlier this month), as Shafqat was undergoing the process of boarding a flight to Dubai from Allama Iqbal International Airport in Lahore at 1830hrs, he had checked in his luggage, cleared customs, received his boarding pass and had just the emigration counter to pass, he was stopped and informed that he had been on the dreaded ECL since March 2011 (though no legally imperative notice had been given to him). He was escorted to an FIA cell and not released until the completion of a two and a half hour interview and confiscation of his travel documents.
Shafqat Ali Khan (Inqalabi) is now left with no documents for travel, internal or external. He is effectively an alien and a prisoner, languishing in his home territory at a loss as to how to confront the predicament Pakistan has put him in. His, as well as his family's telephone/s have been tapped for the past two years. His suffocation and humiliation is complete. Any institution or country that sincerely believes in freedom and the richness of civilisation that it entails must take notice and act.
Written:
Friday
19/08/11
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Monday, August 15, 2011
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Politician of 21 century
Daily Rising Kashmir
Srinagar 26 may 2011
Nawaz Khan Naji is the best of what is visible and tangible, a politician hailing from the northwestern part of the erstwhile State of Jammu & kashmir, has campaigned on the outstanding national question of his people and clinically won an election, against all odds
Tanveer Ahmed
In an era and a region where every politician is interested in capturing the best of what is visible and tangible, a politician hailing from the northwestern part of the erstwhile State of Jammu & kashmir, has campaigned on the outstanding national question of his people and clinically won an election, against all odds.
On April 28 (A date famous for the Karachi Agreement in 1949 when leaders of the Muslim Conference are thought to have effectively deferred control of Gilgit-Baltistan-Ladakh to the Pakistani Government) this year: Nawaz Khan Naji, the founder and supreme head of his faction of the Balawaristan National Front, won a byelection in his home constituency of Ghizer (L-A 19) and thereby became a member of the Gilgit Baltistan Legislative Assembly. This despite a political agenda that directly questions Pakistan's occupation of the territory and being head of a party that espouses the total independence of Gilgit, Baltistan and Ladakh. He aspires for their re-emergence into a re-union of "Highland People" under the nostalgic name of Balawaristan.
The geographic demarcation of Balawaristan would include all areas referred to as the 'Northern Territories' during Dogra Rule and include Shenaki Kohistan and Chitral at the very least (which are currently considered to be constitutionally a part of Pakistan and thus included as part of Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa province). Many people in these territories certainly describe themselves as part of the 'Kashmir Issue' but the vast majority of those that this writer has interacted with, do not consider themselves as a part of the erstwhile Dogra State, not on their volition at any rate.
Returning to possibly the most principled, humble and connected politician who propogates that vision - Nawaz Khan Naji – who happens to be a leading authority on the geography of the region too, considers the above geo-political re-configuration to be his first choice. It should be noted that his secondary choice involves a settlement close to the vision espoused by Kashmiri nationalists of returning to the configuration under Dogra Rule.
Naji hails from humble origins – his father was a lower middle-class farmer in his home village of Sher Qilah in District Ghizer – and he still lives in the modest 'desi' home built by his father. His committment to his cause has kept him unmarried, he is now 50. So intense has been his political life since 1989 when he produced a manifesto and launched Balawaristan National Front with a few friends. A second of three books followed, probingly entitled "Kashmir ka Chowtha Farik (Fourth party of Kashmir dispute). An intolerant regime inevitably tried to curtail his creative political ideas and put him up in jail for more than three months on a couple of occasions, usually under the colonial remnant of section 124(a). This electoral win was his third attempt at testing the prevailing power structure since 2004.
The by-election came about because the then incumbent Pir Syed Ali Shah was ironically (as may become apparent in due course) nominated by Pakistan's Prime Minister as the new Governor of Gilgit Baltistan (after the death of the previous Governor Dr. Shama Khalid). Nawaz Khan Naji's party cadre contend that their leader would have won the original election in November 2009 if the ruling federal party (PPP) in collusion with Pakistan's clandestine agencies hadn't formented a 'law and order' situation. A seventeen year old BNF party worker Zubair, was also killed in the melee. The ruling party's candidate won by a mere 24 votes. Naji filed a suit in pursuit of justice but to no avail.
His victory is remarkable on many counts, apart from the obvious national one. His two main opponents represented each of the main political parties in Pakistan. The PPP's candidate Eng. Jawahir Ali Khan was reported to be openly supported by both the federal government of Pakistan as well as the governing structure in Gilgit Baltistan. PML(N) was represented by Col. Karim, a descendent of the former ruling family of the region and reportedly backed by the military establishment. A little more than a month before polling day, Nawaz Khan Naji was arrested and jailed along with party cadre on the March 22. Incessant public protest ensured his release on the fourth day of detention. Some party workers remained detained for 28 days whilst one worker continues to languish in detention under the previously cited section 124(a). Various sops including cash up to 10 crore for development schemes, wheat, potato seeds and fertiliser were also pushed aside by a committed electorate, carefully nurtured to understand the larger, long term picture by a man who could possibly be regarded as a legitimate standard-bearer of 21st century politics.
There is a clear argument that Naji was able to mobilise the youth to campaign for him round the clock. He won without finances, 'national' party backing or administrative support. Many regard his victory as being far more profound than the winning of a mere constituency seat. They consider it epic and him iconic for achieving it despite the odds. The victory was emphatic to boot. 8399 votes polled for him, 5200 for PML(N)'s candidate, with the ruling party's (PPP) candidate bagging just 4,400. Some go as far as to regard this victory as unprecedented in the post-47 political configurations of Gilgit, Muzaffarabad, Srinagar and Jammu. "Nawaz Khan Naji is the first (overtly nationalist) politician to win an election devised by occupying forces with his own party flag and manifesto", stated one party official.
Like all great stories, a word or two of caution are in order. Criticism levelled by the other faction of the Balawaristan National Front (led by the exiled Abdul Hameed Khan in Belgium) may attribute Naji's victory to under-the-table compromise with the prevailing power structure, that may not be immediately apparent. Others may quote the example of Muzzafar Relley who started as a nationalist before altering direction to become a loyalist of the former Pakistani President Musharraf's party, namely PML (Q).
Whether he accedes to the prevailing 'status quo' and thereby (in)directly legitimises the presence of Pakistan or utilises this platform to address the 'national question' just as he has done for the past 23 years at various national and international fora- while addressing issues of governance for his constituency - will no doubt prove to be a challenge he has yet to surmount. Nevertheless, his victory possibly indicates the intensity of feeling in his constituency about the state of political affairs that prevail over them. Historic reasoning mixed with the confidence that real positive change is possible, appears to have overcome the dire socio-economic reality that blinds most voters of the so-called 'developing world'.
Nawaz Khan Naji is conspiciously clear that a lack of education amongst the populace of Gilgit Baltistan prevents the formation of a genuine national consensus. He also recognises what un-natural impediments lie ahead in charting this course. Most certainly, he would need to be doing most of the convincing in the national assembly if he is to genuinely emerge as a 21st century politician that other politicians may - in time to come - aspire to emulate.
Author is a writer, broadcaster and activist working for civil society development in Pakistani administered Kashmir
Srinagar 26 may 2011
Nawaz Khan Naji is the best of what is visible and tangible, a politician hailing from the northwestern part of the erstwhile State of Jammu & kashmir, has campaigned on the outstanding national question of his people and clinically won an election, against all odds
Tanveer Ahmed
In an era and a region where every politician is interested in capturing the best of what is visible and tangible, a politician hailing from the northwestern part of the erstwhile State of Jammu & kashmir, has campaigned on the outstanding national question of his people and clinically won an election, against all odds.
On April 28 (A date famous for the Karachi Agreement in 1949 when leaders of the Muslim Conference are thought to have effectively deferred control of Gilgit-Baltistan-Ladakh to the Pakistani Government) this year: Nawaz Khan Naji, the founder and supreme head of his faction of the Balawaristan National Front, won a byelection in his home constituency of Ghizer (L-A 19) and thereby became a member of the Gilgit Baltistan Legislative Assembly. This despite a political agenda that directly questions Pakistan's occupation of the territory and being head of a party that espouses the total independence of Gilgit, Baltistan and Ladakh. He aspires for their re-emergence into a re-union of "Highland People" under the nostalgic name of Balawaristan.
The geographic demarcation of Balawaristan would include all areas referred to as the 'Northern Territories' during Dogra Rule and include Shenaki Kohistan and Chitral at the very least (which are currently considered to be constitutionally a part of Pakistan and thus included as part of Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa province). Many people in these territories certainly describe themselves as part of the 'Kashmir Issue' but the vast majority of those that this writer has interacted with, do not consider themselves as a part of the erstwhile Dogra State, not on their volition at any rate.
Returning to possibly the most principled, humble and connected politician who propogates that vision - Nawaz Khan Naji – who happens to be a leading authority on the geography of the region too, considers the above geo-political re-configuration to be his first choice. It should be noted that his secondary choice involves a settlement close to the vision espoused by Kashmiri nationalists of returning to the configuration under Dogra Rule.
Naji hails from humble origins – his father was a lower middle-class farmer in his home village of Sher Qilah in District Ghizer – and he still lives in the modest 'desi' home built by his father. His committment to his cause has kept him unmarried, he is now 50. So intense has been his political life since 1989 when he produced a manifesto and launched Balawaristan National Front with a few friends. A second of three books followed, probingly entitled "Kashmir ka Chowtha Farik (Fourth party of Kashmir dispute). An intolerant regime inevitably tried to curtail his creative political ideas and put him up in jail for more than three months on a couple of occasions, usually under the colonial remnant of section 124(a). This electoral win was his third attempt at testing the prevailing power structure since 2004.
The by-election came about because the then incumbent Pir Syed Ali Shah was ironically (as may become apparent in due course) nominated by Pakistan's Prime Minister as the new Governor of Gilgit Baltistan (after the death of the previous Governor Dr. Shama Khalid). Nawaz Khan Naji's party cadre contend that their leader would have won the original election in November 2009 if the ruling federal party (PPP) in collusion with Pakistan's clandestine agencies hadn't formented a 'law and order' situation. A seventeen year old BNF party worker Zubair, was also killed in the melee. The ruling party's candidate won by a mere 24 votes. Naji filed a suit in pursuit of justice but to no avail.
His victory is remarkable on many counts, apart from the obvious national one. His two main opponents represented each of the main political parties in Pakistan. The PPP's candidate Eng. Jawahir Ali Khan was reported to be openly supported by both the federal government of Pakistan as well as the governing structure in Gilgit Baltistan. PML(N) was represented by Col. Karim, a descendent of the former ruling family of the region and reportedly backed by the military establishment. A little more than a month before polling day, Nawaz Khan Naji was arrested and jailed along with party cadre on the March 22. Incessant public protest ensured his release on the fourth day of detention. Some party workers remained detained for 28 days whilst one worker continues to languish in detention under the previously cited section 124(a). Various sops including cash up to 10 crore for development schemes, wheat, potato seeds and fertiliser were also pushed aside by a committed electorate, carefully nurtured to understand the larger, long term picture by a man who could possibly be regarded as a legitimate standard-bearer of 21st century politics.
There is a clear argument that Naji was able to mobilise the youth to campaign for him round the clock. He won without finances, 'national' party backing or administrative support. Many regard his victory as being far more profound than the winning of a mere constituency seat. They consider it epic and him iconic for achieving it despite the odds. The victory was emphatic to boot. 8399 votes polled for him, 5200 for PML(N)'s candidate, with the ruling party's (PPP) candidate bagging just 4,400. Some go as far as to regard this victory as unprecedented in the post-47 political configurations of Gilgit, Muzaffarabad, Srinagar and Jammu. "Nawaz Khan Naji is the first (overtly nationalist) politician to win an election devised by occupying forces with his own party flag and manifesto", stated one party official.
Like all great stories, a word or two of caution are in order. Criticism levelled by the other faction of the Balawaristan National Front (led by the exiled Abdul Hameed Khan in Belgium) may attribute Naji's victory to under-the-table compromise with the prevailing power structure, that may not be immediately apparent. Others may quote the example of Muzzafar Relley who started as a nationalist before altering direction to become a loyalist of the former Pakistani President Musharraf's party, namely PML (Q).
Whether he accedes to the prevailing 'status quo' and thereby (in)directly legitimises the presence of Pakistan or utilises this platform to address the 'national question' just as he has done for the past 23 years at various national and international fora- while addressing issues of governance for his constituency - will no doubt prove to be a challenge he has yet to surmount. Nevertheless, his victory possibly indicates the intensity of feeling in his constituency about the state of political affairs that prevail over them. Historic reasoning mixed with the confidence that real positive change is possible, appears to have overcome the dire socio-economic reality that blinds most voters of the so-called 'developing world'.
Nawaz Khan Naji is conspiciously clear that a lack of education amongst the populace of Gilgit Baltistan prevents the formation of a genuine national consensus. He also recognises what un-natural impediments lie ahead in charting this course. Most certainly, he would need to be doing most of the convincing in the national assembly if he is to genuinely emerge as a 21st century politician that other politicians may - in time to come - aspire to emulate.
Author is a writer, broadcaster and activist working for civil society development in Pakistani administered Kashmir
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Nawaz Khan Naji Wins in Ghizar
Thursday, May 05th, 2011
Nawaz Khan Naji, the nationalist leader of Balawaristan National Front has secured a double margin victory, defeating the PPP fed Jawahir Ali Khan. The people of Ghizar have changed the course of politics in Gilgit-Baltistan by choosing a home-grown political thought for the first time ever in the history of the region. Nawaz Khan Naji has got 8332 votes against 4513 votes of PPP Candidate.
Col. Karim of Pakistan Muslim League (N) stood second by getting 5051 votes. The results of the election have shunned Mehdhi Shah’s sky rocking claims of his party position in Ghizar. Mehdhi Shah has wondered how on the earth a candidate could win in the presence of a party Governor and other Ministers.
“A victory of an opposing party— in the presence of our governor and senior ministers — is completely incomprehensible for me. Senior Party leaders are largely responsible for the defeat. I will call upon a party meeting in order to probe into what went wrong in the election”, Mehdhi Shah said.
On other hand, Col. Karim of Muslim League (N) has thanked the people for their vigorous preference: him over the PPP candidate. He has accepted the mandate of the people and has offered his party support to Nawaz Khan Naji to better represent the people of Ghizar.
The election in Ghizar 19, by and large, remained peaceful; nevertheless, high security arrangements were put in place to hold the elections in 51 polling stations peacefully. Social and political circles in Gilgit term the victory of Naji as the change of direction while other equate Naji with Muzzafar Railey who started as a nationalist and became a loyalist to the former dictator, Perveiz Musharaf.
There was a vigorous criticism on PPP government of Gilgit-Baltistan that they attempted to influence and temper the electoral. Millions of rupees – in cash and in kind – were poured into the district even the day before the polling. That hardly impacted the people of Ghizar whose political vision, for decades, remained Larkana centric. Political workers in Gilgit-Baltistan see the defeat as the receding of PPP glaciers in Ghizar.
“This is the last round of PPP. The people of Ghizar have set the standard. Others, in Gilgit-Baltistan should follow them to change the treadmill. I salute to the people of Ghizar who did not succumbed to pressure of fertilizers or flour. They were not impressed of the Governor and Chief Ministers. They defeated the government resources and machinery and listened to their inner conscious and decided what was best for them.” Said Mirza Hussain.
Naji, although, a sensible and seasoned politician, will have to navigate carefully through the turbulent politics of Gilgit-Baltistan, for carrying an off-beat ideology and jumping into the busy traffic of under table licensed politicians will easily dim his stance in the national politics. However, his victory will have a long lasting impact on the voices raised for the rights of Gilgit-Baltistan.
Nawaz Khan Naji has said that his victory is the victory of his ideology that best represents the people of the region
Nawaz Khan Naji, the nationalist leader of Balawaristan National Front has secured a double margin victory, defeating the PPP fed Jawahir Ali Khan. The people of Ghizar have changed the course of politics in Gilgit-Baltistan by choosing a home-grown political thought for the first time ever in the history of the region. Nawaz Khan Naji has got 8332 votes against 4513 votes of PPP Candidate.
Col. Karim of Pakistan Muslim League (N) stood second by getting 5051 votes. The results of the election have shunned Mehdhi Shah’s sky rocking claims of his party position in Ghizar. Mehdhi Shah has wondered how on the earth a candidate could win in the presence of a party Governor and other Ministers.
“A victory of an opposing party— in the presence of our governor and senior ministers — is completely incomprehensible for me. Senior Party leaders are largely responsible for the defeat. I will call upon a party meeting in order to probe into what went wrong in the election”, Mehdhi Shah said.
On other hand, Col. Karim of Muslim League (N) has thanked the people for their vigorous preference: him over the PPP candidate. He has accepted the mandate of the people and has offered his party support to Nawaz Khan Naji to better represent the people of Ghizar.
The election in Ghizar 19, by and large, remained peaceful; nevertheless, high security arrangements were put in place to hold the elections in 51 polling stations peacefully. Social and political circles in Gilgit term the victory of Naji as the change of direction while other equate Naji with Muzzafar Railey who started as a nationalist and became a loyalist to the former dictator, Perveiz Musharaf.
There was a vigorous criticism on PPP government of Gilgit-Baltistan that they attempted to influence and temper the electoral. Millions of rupees – in cash and in kind – were poured into the district even the day before the polling. That hardly impacted the people of Ghizar whose political vision, for decades, remained Larkana centric. Political workers in Gilgit-Baltistan see the defeat as the receding of PPP glaciers in Ghizar.
“This is the last round of PPP. The people of Ghizar have set the standard. Others, in Gilgit-Baltistan should follow them to change the treadmill. I salute to the people of Ghizar who did not succumbed to pressure of fertilizers or flour. They were not impressed of the Governor and Chief Ministers. They defeated the government resources and machinery and listened to their inner conscious and decided what was best for them.” Said Mirza Hussain.
Naji, although, a sensible and seasoned politician, will have to navigate carefully through the turbulent politics of Gilgit-Baltistan, for carrying an off-beat ideology and jumping into the busy traffic of under table licensed politicians will easily dim his stance in the national politics. However, his victory will have a long lasting impact on the voices raised for the rights of Gilgit-Baltistan.
Nawaz Khan Naji has said that his victory is the victory of his ideology that best represents the people of the region
Friday, December 17, 2010
Gilgit Baltistan senses it's potential
Tanveer Ahmed
Never have I witnessed such a closed society to the outside world, a 'secret file' as one local politician aptly put it. Being behind a 'wall' for the most part of Pakistan's existence has generated such a pent up desire for progress amongst the people of Gilgit Baltistan, that at times it seemed, their mere intent would suddenly transform 'dead mountains' into pits of sapphire and uranium.
Superlatives aside, Gilgit Baltistan is that part of the Dogra State (1846-1947) that along with Ladakh holds least attention, whenever the 'Kashmir Issue' is discussed. This is despite (along with Ladakh - administered by India) being geographically by far the largest part of the erstwhile kingdom. If you put a knife to the State as if you were cutting a cake that resembled the shape of Jammu and Kashmir State - as it was known until the last third of the month of October 1947 - you would slice most of what is north and east, barely leaving a fifth of what is left remaining of the southwest.
Along with it's issue of lack of proximity to the highly centralized capitals of Islamabad and New Delhi, it also lacks in manpower what the rest of Kashmir (using the word generically) makes up for with a population of 15.5 million (Jammu, the Valley and AJK combined) compared to Gilgit-Baltistan-Ladakh's 2.5 million. The proportion of land-mass to population is bizarrely inverse if all the aforementioned parts are considered as two units of one whole.
Marginalisation in terms of opportunities for education and upliftment that were apparent during Dogra rule continued beyond 1947 as the area that became known as the 'Northern Areas' of Pakistan was neither constitutionally a part of Pakistan (thus, no representation in the latter's national assembly) and neither was it considered a part of Kashmir or what became known as AJK (Azad/free Jammu Kashmir - otherwise referred to as Pakistani-administered Kashmir). India's legal claim and subsequent inactivity to enforce that claim has only added to the confusion.
The Urdu proverb "na teen me na teraa me" (neither counted amongst the 3's or the 13's) is oft-cited to give a nutshell depiction to an outsider.
Indeed, political awareness in the region has had a latent element to it. Agreements between the Mirs of Hunza and Nagar or between the Muslim Conference and the government of Pakistan (Karachi Agreement of the 28th of April 1949), all raise questions about the public legitimacy of these decisions, amongst the increasingly politically aware Gilgit Baltistan population. Further, the manner in which Pakistan cajoled the 'liberators' of this territory from Dogra Rule in November 1947, to surrender to Pakistan and their subsequent humiliating demotion, is the basis of many a 'chai-ki-dukaan' (coffee-shop) discussion today. For the record, the chief of the liberated territories Shahrez Khan was demoted to a civil supply officer whilst his second-in-command Col. Hassan Mirza was asked to undertake an entry test to rejoin the army.
As with many other disputed parts of the world, information-sharing, awareness gathering and subsequent political activism for basic rights has been a steep uphill task. It wasn't until 1967 that some semblance of a political rights movement took root in the shape of Gilgit-Baltistan-Ladakh Mutahhida Mahaz under the leadership of Johar Ali Advocate. Subsequent attempts by the government of Pakistan to placate or address people's grievances or needs are widely considered to be too little, too slow and in some cases too late.
As with Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's directly elected council in 1974, the Legal Framework Order (LFO) of 1994, Musharraf's re-hashing of the latter in 2007 or the currently in
focus 'Gilgit Baltistan Empowerment Ordinance of 2009: the only people in support of these initiatives have been those who have directly benefitted from them. This leaves out most of the population, who not only have to make do with endemic institutional corruption and unavailability of a single medical, engineering, technical or other post-graduate college in the whole territory. They also have to endure taxation without representation; last year's newly-formed assembly does not possess the right to legislate on it's natural resources, including water and minerals and for all intents and purposes, Pakistan's executive in the shape of it's Ministry of Kashmir Affairs and Northern Areas (KANA) deals with all issues of governance.
Whilst anger and frustration with Pakistan's inability to deliver good governance to the public of Gilgit Baltistan is clearly apparent, reservations about 'Kashmiris' and resentment for being an 'unheard' component of the 'Kashmir Issue' are also inescapable. Some who have interacted over the years as students and businessman with Kashmiris in the Pakistani cities of Karachi, Multan and Quetta have explained a persistent negative propaganda campaign against Kashmiris coupled by the closing of traditional routes within the pre-1947 state; such as Skardu to Kargil, Astor to the Valley via Minimarg or Shonter Pass to Muzaffarabad.
A lack of interaction between people of the various parts of the erstwhile state have dented historic relationships as much as they've created an air of inquisitiveness and yearning to re-kindle old ties, not to mention a fresh vigor to initiate trade links.
The repression that the people have undergone since 1947 signified by restriction of educational/economic opportunity and their liberty being subordinate to the geo-political priorities of others, has led many to envision an independent country free of Pakistan as well as Kashmir. Many a historic name is invoked for this state including Bolore, Balawaristan, Karakoram and Dardistan. What is clear is that those who consider themselves politically progressive in approach are open to ideas as long as their region with all it's various ethnicities, languages, natural resources and trade routes are not subject to hegemonic design by others; including Kashmir. What many are not clear about is the exact geographic definition of their territory and likewise don't possess a road-map for their political future. Nevertheless, whatever their future political shape or association may be, they would be keen to ensure an opt-out clause that could prevent them from entering into another morass.
It was encouraging to see efficient utilization of their land for agricultural output, with cherry and almond trees commonly visible in most regions. That is despite their weak wholesale bargaining position i.e. as they could only sell to Pakistani buyers, they had little control over the price they were paid. In a similar manner, their lack of educational facilities couldn't hide their keenness to learn. Further, the multitude of intelligence agencies watching every public move didn't deter them from expressing themselves. What was less encouraging was the sight of old Hindu and Buddhist temples in ruins and the lack of apparent public will to restore them to their original state.
The level of awareness is such that many cite American and Chinese competition in the region as a major influence on their present as well as future. While the Chinese are ubiquitous in terms of infrastructure building i.e roads, tunnels, bridges etc. as they pave the way for uninterrupted access to the warm water port of Gwadar in Baluchistan, the Americans were not shy in competing with teh Chinese to provide relief to affecters of the Attabad land-sliding disaster earlier this year. The latter are also busy in sending out expeditions to locate many an untouched mineral and precious stone deposit in those 'dead mountains' that have often characterized Gilgit Baltistan.
Author is a writer, broadcaster and activist working for civil society development in Pakistani-administered Kashmir and can be mailed at sahaafi@gmail.com
Never have I witnessed such a closed society to the outside world, a 'secret file' as one local politician aptly put it. Being behind a 'wall' for the most part of Pakistan's existence has generated such a pent up desire for progress amongst the people of Gilgit Baltistan, that at times it seemed, their mere intent would suddenly transform 'dead mountains' into pits of sapphire and uranium.
Superlatives aside, Gilgit Baltistan is that part of the Dogra State (1846-1947) that along with Ladakh holds least attention, whenever the 'Kashmir Issue' is discussed. This is despite (along with Ladakh - administered by India) being geographically by far the largest part of the erstwhile kingdom. If you put a knife to the State as if you were cutting a cake that resembled the shape of Jammu and Kashmir State - as it was known until the last third of the month of October 1947 - you would slice most of what is north and east, barely leaving a fifth of what is left remaining of the southwest.
Along with it's issue of lack of proximity to the highly centralized capitals of Islamabad and New Delhi, it also lacks in manpower what the rest of Kashmir (using the word generically) makes up for with a population of 15.5 million (Jammu, the Valley and AJK combined) compared to Gilgit-Baltistan-Ladakh's 2.5 million. The proportion of land-mass to population is bizarrely inverse if all the aforementioned parts are considered as two units of one whole.
Marginalisation in terms of opportunities for education and upliftment that were apparent during Dogra rule continued beyond 1947 as the area that became known as the 'Northern Areas' of Pakistan was neither constitutionally a part of Pakistan (thus, no representation in the latter's national assembly) and neither was it considered a part of Kashmir or what became known as AJK (Azad/free Jammu Kashmir - otherwise referred to as Pakistani-administered Kashmir). India's legal claim and subsequent inactivity to enforce that claim has only added to the confusion.
The Urdu proverb "na teen me na teraa me" (neither counted amongst the 3's or the 13's) is oft-cited to give a nutshell depiction to an outsider.
Indeed, political awareness in the region has had a latent element to it. Agreements between the Mirs of Hunza and Nagar or between the Muslim Conference and the government of Pakistan (Karachi Agreement of the 28th of April 1949), all raise questions about the public legitimacy of these decisions, amongst the increasingly politically aware Gilgit Baltistan population. Further, the manner in which Pakistan cajoled the 'liberators' of this territory from Dogra Rule in November 1947, to surrender to Pakistan and their subsequent humiliating demotion, is the basis of many a 'chai-ki-dukaan' (coffee-shop) discussion today. For the record, the chief of the liberated territories Shahrez Khan was demoted to a civil supply officer whilst his second-in-command Col. Hassan Mirza was asked to undertake an entry test to rejoin the army.
As with many other disputed parts of the world, information-sharing, awareness gathering and subsequent political activism for basic rights has been a steep uphill task. It wasn't until 1967 that some semblance of a political rights movement took root in the shape of Gilgit-Baltistan-Ladakh Mutahhida Mahaz under the leadership of Johar Ali Advocate. Subsequent attempts by the government of Pakistan to placate or address people's grievances or needs are widely considered to be too little, too slow and in some cases too late.
As with Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's directly elected council in 1974, the Legal Framework Order (LFO) of 1994, Musharraf's re-hashing of the latter in 2007 or the currently in
focus 'Gilgit Baltistan Empowerment Ordinance of 2009: the only people in support of these initiatives have been those who have directly benefitted from them. This leaves out most of the population, who not only have to make do with endemic institutional corruption and unavailability of a single medical, engineering, technical or other post-graduate college in the whole territory. They also have to endure taxation without representation; last year's newly-formed assembly does not possess the right to legislate on it's natural resources, including water and minerals and for all intents and purposes, Pakistan's executive in the shape of it's Ministry of Kashmir Affairs and Northern Areas (KANA) deals with all issues of governance.
Whilst anger and frustration with Pakistan's inability to deliver good governance to the public of Gilgit Baltistan is clearly apparent, reservations about 'Kashmiris' and resentment for being an 'unheard' component of the 'Kashmir Issue' are also inescapable. Some who have interacted over the years as students and businessman with Kashmiris in the Pakistani cities of Karachi, Multan and Quetta have explained a persistent negative propaganda campaign against Kashmiris coupled by the closing of traditional routes within the pre-1947 state; such as Skardu to Kargil, Astor to the Valley via Minimarg or Shonter Pass to Muzaffarabad.
A lack of interaction between people of the various parts of the erstwhile state have dented historic relationships as much as they've created an air of inquisitiveness and yearning to re-kindle old ties, not to mention a fresh vigor to initiate trade links.
The repression that the people have undergone since 1947 signified by restriction of educational/economic opportunity and their liberty being subordinate to the geo-political priorities of others, has led many to envision an independent country free of Pakistan as well as Kashmir. Many a historic name is invoked for this state including Bolore, Balawaristan, Karakoram and Dardistan. What is clear is that those who consider themselves politically progressive in approach are open to ideas as long as their region with all it's various ethnicities, languages, natural resources and trade routes are not subject to hegemonic design by others; including Kashmir. What many are not clear about is the exact geographic definition of their territory and likewise don't possess a road-map for their political future. Nevertheless, whatever their future political shape or association may be, they would be keen to ensure an opt-out clause that could prevent them from entering into another morass.
It was encouraging to see efficient utilization of their land for agricultural output, with cherry and almond trees commonly visible in most regions. That is despite their weak wholesale bargaining position i.e. as they could only sell to Pakistani buyers, they had little control over the price they were paid. In a similar manner, their lack of educational facilities couldn't hide their keenness to learn. Further, the multitude of intelligence agencies watching every public move didn't deter them from expressing themselves. What was less encouraging was the sight of old Hindu and Buddhist temples in ruins and the lack of apparent public will to restore them to their original state.
The level of awareness is such that many cite American and Chinese competition in the region as a major influence on their present as well as future. While the Chinese are ubiquitous in terms of infrastructure building i.e roads, tunnels, bridges etc. as they pave the way for uninterrupted access to the warm water port of Gwadar in Baluchistan, the Americans were not shy in competing with teh Chinese to provide relief to affecters of the Attabad land-sliding disaster earlier this year. The latter are also busy in sending out expeditions to locate many an untouched mineral and precious stone deposit in those 'dead mountains' that have often characterized Gilgit Baltistan.
Author is a writer, broadcaster and activist working for civil society development in Pakistani-administered Kashmir and can be mailed at sahaafi@gmail.com
Sunday, September 26, 2010
China and India: the great game’s new players
by Jaswant Singh
Several thousand Chinese People’s Liberation Army troops are stationed in the Khunjerab Pass on the Xinjiang border. Photograph: Peter Parks/Getty Images
Two “great games” currently roil South Asia. In the west, Afghanistan – and what Henry Kissinger calls “Islamist jihadists” – challenges the international order. In the east, a large number of Chinese troops have entered Pakistani-held territory high in the mountain fastness of the Kashmir Karakorams, in the picturesque Gilgit-Baltistan region, not far from the glacial battlefield of Siachen, where India and Pakistan confront each other.
Senge Hasan Sering, from Skardu, the director of the Gilgit-Baltistan National Congress, believes that the number of Chinese People’s Liberation Army troops now present “could be over 11,000″, as there are also additional “PLA construction corps personnel” deployed. It is here that China is currently investing “billions of dollars in mega projects like expressways, tunnels, and oil and gas pipelines”. This, Sering says, is “surely not on account of any overflowing altruism”.
The Chinese say that some of their troops are present in Pakistan because of another sort of “overflowing”, of which there has been a great deal in this part of Kashmir and in the rest of Pakistan. This year’s heavy monsoon rains have wrought havoc in the area, severing road connections, washing away bridges and rendering over half a million people homeless in these mountains – without “dwellings, farmlands, moveable assets” or even “graveyards”. This is over and above the many thousands in the Hunza region, who in January lost everything on account of a cloudburst that wiped out several villages and created a highly unstable artificial lake.
Rudyard Kipling’s old “great game” now has new contestants. Instead of an expansionist Russian empire confronting imperial Britain, it is now a China hungry for land, water and raw materials that is flexing its muscles, encroaching on Himalayan redoubts and directly challenging India.
China’s incursion reaffirms the ancient strategic axiom that “geography is the real determinant of history” – and, as a result, of foreign and security policy, too. Robert Kaplan wisely observes that “Indian geography is the story of invasions from a northwesterly direction” and “India’s strategic challenges still inhere in this fact” – which is why Afghanistan, to Indian eyes, is linked to the subcontinent’s history, and thus our future.
It is also why there exists an “organic connection of India to Central Asia”, the key to that link lying in the Himalayas, which is where the India-China rivalry is currently focused. Fortunately, at least for the present, this rivalry is far less emotional than India-Pakistan relations, having not been born of historical grievances.
The Chinese urge is to break from the confines of their country’s history, and thus China’s own geography. An assertive and relatively stable China, it seems, must expand, lest pent-up internal pressures tear it apart. A strong and stable India, on the other hand, will always be a status quo power.
It is against this backdrop that the latest contest between India and China must be assessed. Several thousand PLA troops are indisputably stationed in the Khunjerab Pass on the Xinjiang border to protect the Karakoram highway, which PLA soldiers are now repairing in several places. The road, after all, is a vital link in China’s quest for direct access to the Arabian Sea. But this is also Indian territory, wherein lies the rub, for the region is now victim to a creeping China acquisitiveness, with Pakistan acquiescing as a willing accomplice.
Despite India’s historically established territorial claims to the region, China terms the area “disputed” – a description it has now begun to extend to the whole of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. This sort of verbal trickery to hide a strategic objective has been seen before. Indeed, some years back, a planned visit to Indian Ladakh by the PLA’s commander of the Lanzhou Military Region was cancelled on the grounds that Pakistan had protested – implying that Pakistan had a legitimate claim to the area.
It would be a mistake to presume that the vast expansion of trade between India and China, currently worth more than $60bn (£38bn) annually (with China now India’s largest trading partner), must lead to improved bilateral relations. Even while trade expands, China is attempting to confine India within greatly foreshortened land and sea borders through its so-called “string of pearls policy”.
This effort to encircle India by sea with strategically positioned naval stations from Hainan in the east to Gwadar in the west, and on land by promoting bogus Pakistani claims that undermine India’s territorial integrity, takes the “great game” to a new and more dangerous level. Indeed, the pincer of Afghanistan and Gilgit/Baltistan poses the gravest challenge to India’s statecraft since independence.
More than that, the struggle now underway at the top of the world may well determine whether this will be an “Asian century” or a “Chinese century”.
Several thousand Chinese People’s Liberation Army troops are stationed in the Khunjerab Pass on the Xinjiang border. Photograph: Peter Parks/Getty Images
Two “great games” currently roil South Asia. In the west, Afghanistan – and what Henry Kissinger calls “Islamist jihadists” – challenges the international order. In the east, a large number of Chinese troops have entered Pakistani-held territory high in the mountain fastness of the Kashmir Karakorams, in the picturesque Gilgit-Baltistan region, not far from the glacial battlefield of Siachen, where India and Pakistan confront each other.
Senge Hasan Sering, from Skardu, the director of the Gilgit-Baltistan National Congress, believes that the number of Chinese People’s Liberation Army troops now present “could be over 11,000″, as there are also additional “PLA construction corps personnel” deployed. It is here that China is currently investing “billions of dollars in mega projects like expressways, tunnels, and oil and gas pipelines”. This, Sering says, is “surely not on account of any overflowing altruism”.
The Chinese say that some of their troops are present in Pakistan because of another sort of “overflowing”, of which there has been a great deal in this part of Kashmir and in the rest of Pakistan. This year’s heavy monsoon rains have wrought havoc in the area, severing road connections, washing away bridges and rendering over half a million people homeless in these mountains – without “dwellings, farmlands, moveable assets” or even “graveyards”. This is over and above the many thousands in the Hunza region, who in January lost everything on account of a cloudburst that wiped out several villages and created a highly unstable artificial lake.
Rudyard Kipling’s old “great game” now has new contestants. Instead of an expansionist Russian empire confronting imperial Britain, it is now a China hungry for land, water and raw materials that is flexing its muscles, encroaching on Himalayan redoubts and directly challenging India.
China’s incursion reaffirms the ancient strategic axiom that “geography is the real determinant of history” – and, as a result, of foreign and security policy, too. Robert Kaplan wisely observes that “Indian geography is the story of invasions from a northwesterly direction” and “India’s strategic challenges still inhere in this fact” – which is why Afghanistan, to Indian eyes, is linked to the subcontinent’s history, and thus our future.
It is also why there exists an “organic connection of India to Central Asia”, the key to that link lying in the Himalayas, which is where the India-China rivalry is currently focused. Fortunately, at least for the present, this rivalry is far less emotional than India-Pakistan relations, having not been born of historical grievances.
The Chinese urge is to break from the confines of their country’s history, and thus China’s own geography. An assertive and relatively stable China, it seems, must expand, lest pent-up internal pressures tear it apart. A strong and stable India, on the other hand, will always be a status quo power.
It is against this backdrop that the latest contest between India and China must be assessed. Several thousand PLA troops are indisputably stationed in the Khunjerab Pass on the Xinjiang border to protect the Karakoram highway, which PLA soldiers are now repairing in several places. The road, after all, is a vital link in China’s quest for direct access to the Arabian Sea. But this is also Indian territory, wherein lies the rub, for the region is now victim to a creeping China acquisitiveness, with Pakistan acquiescing as a willing accomplice.
Despite India’s historically established territorial claims to the region, China terms the area “disputed” – a description it has now begun to extend to the whole of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. This sort of verbal trickery to hide a strategic objective has been seen before. Indeed, some years back, a planned visit to Indian Ladakh by the PLA’s commander of the Lanzhou Military Region was cancelled on the grounds that Pakistan had protested – implying that Pakistan had a legitimate claim to the area.
It would be a mistake to presume that the vast expansion of trade between India and China, currently worth more than $60bn (£38bn) annually (with China now India’s largest trading partner), must lead to improved bilateral relations. Even while trade expands, China is attempting to confine India within greatly foreshortened land and sea borders through its so-called “string of pearls policy”.
This effort to encircle India by sea with strategically positioned naval stations from Hainan in the east to Gwadar in the west, and on land by promoting bogus Pakistani claims that undermine India’s territorial integrity, takes the “great game” to a new and more dangerous level. Indeed, the pincer of Afghanistan and Gilgit/Baltistan poses the gravest challenge to India’s statecraft since independence.
More than that, the struggle now underway at the top of the world may well determine whether this will be an “Asian century” or a “Chinese century”.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Who has compromised in Gilgit Baltistan?
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 7:55 AM, Dr Shabir Choudhry wrote:
Who has compromised in Gilgit Baltistan?
Dr Shabir Choudhry 14 June 2010 London
Legally and constitutionally areas of Gilgit Baltistan are part of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, but practically Pakistan has annexed these areas. Irony is Pakistan still present itself as a champion of Kashmiri peoples right of self determination and many people are so gullible that not only they accept this, but also urge others to fall in line or else they will be declared anti Pakistan or pro India.
These areas of Gilgit Baltistan have great strategic importance and it was because of this the British leased Gilgit Agency from the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir; and returned it only two weeks before the end of their Raj in India. This area was so important to them that when the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir refused to give them a lease, they in order to twist his arm, managed unrest in Kashmir which included the incident of 13 July 1931.
Pakistan took over these areas after the British, with help of Gilgit Scouts, managed another unrest which resulted in overthrow of the Maharaja’s appointed Governor Brigadier Gansara Singh. In order to get some kind of legality to their rule, the Pakistani government signed a treaty with their puppet rulers in Azad Kashmir. This treaty is known as the Karachi Agreement.
The government of Pakistan issued Gilgit Baltistan Ordinance last year and have made these areas a province of Pakistan without declaring it as such. In 1971 war they lost East Pakistan which was about 57 thousand square miles; and they have recovered some of that loss by annexing Gilgit Baltistan which is about 28 thousand square miles.
Gilgit Baltistan has population of just over two million. They weren’t many who opposed this Ordinance, as they expected it to bring about a system of government better than what they had experienced previously. Apart from that they were promised enormous economic rewards which have not been delivered yet.
One man – Shafqat Inquilabi had commitment to his ideology, and he loved his nation; and didn’t want it to become part of Pakistan. He thought it was humiliating that Gilgit Baltistan is annexed by an Ordinance. He decided to stand up and be counted that at least there was someone who openly opposed it. After discussing the matter with his colleagues, especially leadership of Kashmir National Party, he decided to challenge this Ordinance. In hope of getting justice and that from Pakistani rulers and Pakistani judiciary, he challenged the Ordinance in the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
In my last article on the subject titled, Gilgit Baltistan and Shafqat Inquilabi, I wrote some details of what the Pakistani secret agencies did to Shafqat Inquilabi for challenging Pakistani government over the issue of Gilgit Baltistan. This article was carried by dozens of publications and I got many emails on the subject. Some people have expressed support, and a few have suggested that propaganda has been unleashed against Shafqat Inquilabi that he has ‘compromised’ and that was why Kashmiri nationalists were not supporting him.
This allegation is ridiculous. All colonial powers want to prolong their rule in their colony and for that purpose they give rewards to those who are willing to sell their souls for material and political gains. Pakistani rulers are no exception to this rule. They have also established their rule with help of local collaborators which directly support their rule and some act as their ‘B team’; and impose themselves as ‘nationalists’. The role of these fake nationalists is to create divisions and make allegations against those who genuinely oppose the colonial rule.
About four years ago I heard Shafqat Inquilabi had compromised his position, and he was no longer a ‘nationalist’. When Pakistan annexed these areas, many ‘nationalists’ decided to remain quiet, or tried to get some rewards; but Shafqat Inquilabi was prominent among those who strongly opposed this Ordinance. Furthermore it was Shafqat Inquilabi who filed a case in the Supreme Court of Pakistan; and consequently suffered for his daring action; and yet propaganda against him is that he has ‘compromised’.
It doesn’t require rocket science to reach this conclusion that those who are spreading this propaganda are either agents of those whose interest Shafqat Inquilabi has challenged or they have personal disliking of the man or they feel threatened by his political activities, as they feel area for them to manoeuvre is getting marginalised.
Who else has compromised?
Both factions of APHC are Valley centric, their Kashmir or interest does not go beyond boundaries of the Valley, hence silence over what Pakistan does to people of Jammu and Kashmir on the other side of LOC. One could say same is the case with Yasin Malik, Shabir Shah and Sajjad Lone. He has become more pro division since becoming son in law of Amanullah Khan.
I had an interesting email regarding the issue of compromise, and it surely gives a different perspective on the matter. Without making any changes, I am producing most of this email for benefit of my readers. It reads:
‘I am very much surprised as to why Indian government does not talk about rights of people of Gilgit Baltistan? And why even the elected leadership (Omar Abdullah, Mehbooba Mufti) in Kashmir never raise enough concern over Pakistan's pact for GB year 2009?
Does it mean that India has given up its claim on the territory or does not consider GB part of Kashmir? Then why Indian Government Official Map still shows GB as part of 1947 Kashmir political map?
Also its true for GB people as well, they don’t seek any political input from Indian Administered Kashmir or even Indian government. It seems that, unlike what we hear officially from APHC, Indian or Pakistani Government is not what is actually happening on the ground. The only thing which is true on the ground and what is portrayed in news is the huge army presence in civilian areas of Kashmir Valley, which is the cause of death and other human right violations. It is portrayed as if only Valley is having consistent agitations and issues with Army and Indian Government. Rest part of Kashmir like AJK, GB, Ladhak, Jammu all seems to be contended, by and large, with what ever they have got.
It is agreed that all regions of Kashmir political entity don't protest as vehemently as Kashmir-Valley Specific. The reasons may be they are driven by religion or Pakistani agency or foreign money sources, but yes, Kashmir Valley really make a louder and consistent case than any other sub-division of Kashmir State.
What will it take to make a unified voice from all regions of Kashmir State, unanimously that we want liberation? And when will that happen? Can only Kashmir Valley stone throws and agitations and human sacrifices is enough for Kashmir resolution? Aren't the political leaders guilty of misery of common men, whom they have forced in this quagmire of never ending mess
What is the way forward? I think the way forward is to realise that we have a problem, and then to have a compromise solution. Compromise solution is to give the Kashmir state (the whole) political freedom guaranteed by United Nations, China, India and Pakistan. In return, Free Kashmir will guarantee, equal and fair treatment of all neighbours and will not give leverage to one neighbour at the cost of the other. This will include political and business opportunities as well’.
This long quotation has many important points and readers can draw their own conclusions. But it shows that people know who is doing what in name of Kashmir; and what needs to be done to end the misery of the suffering people.
However it would be pertinent to say that, at least, one political figure from the Valley has expressed his support for Shafqat Inquilabi and the cause he is promoting. That person is Hilal Ahmed War, who has expressed his full solidarity with the people of Gilgit Baltistan and openly said that these areas are part of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Hilal Ahmed War says Pakistan has no right to annex these areas.
Role of China in this matter
It would be interesting for the readers to know that China also had great input in Gilgit Baltistan Ordinance. Chinese interest in this strategically important region is well known and they have more than 12,000 army personal carrying out various projects. China has helped Pakistan enormously and all the major projects have been completed with the Chinese help, guidance and money.
China and Pakistan have signed some more major projects related to this region which include construction of Diamer Basha Dam and other dams. Apart from the skilled labour, China has agreed to completely finance the $8.5 billion project, which was previously
put at 6.5 billion. When the World Bank refused to help Pakistan, the Chinese agreed to take full responsibility for the project, but they were not willing to invest this huge amount of money in a territory legal status of which was uncertain.
The work on the project was scheduled to start in 2009, and under pressure from China the Pakistan government produced that Ordinance. They had no time to think or plan it properly; or even discuss it with their puppets in Azad Kashmir or in Gilgit Baltistan.
This adds a new twist to the tragedy. On one hand there is government of Pakistan with all its might and powerful secret agencies, and of course support of local collaborators, not to mention position of China on the subject of the Ordinance; and on other hand is Shafqat Inquilabi who has challenged that Ordinance.
Of course he has no chance of winning. So far he has stood firmly and has not given in to the pressure of the agencies to withdraw that petition from the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Apart from the Almighty the only supporter he has is newly established nationalist and secular party called Kashmir National Party.
We will continue to support Shafqat Inquilabi, even when we know we will get hurt in this fight, and we will not win it either; but at times, winning is not everything, upholding a principle is more important. Instead of becoming collaborators or agents of those who occupy us, we will rather go down fighting.
Writer is Director Diplomatic Committee of Kashmir National Party, political analyst and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs.Email:drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com
To view other articles see my blog: www.drshabirchoudhry.blogspot.com
Dr Shabir Choudhry
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell.
Who has compromised in Gilgit Baltistan?
Dr Shabir Choudhry 14 June 2010 London
Legally and constitutionally areas of Gilgit Baltistan are part of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, but practically Pakistan has annexed these areas. Irony is Pakistan still present itself as a champion of Kashmiri peoples right of self determination and many people are so gullible that not only they accept this, but also urge others to fall in line or else they will be declared anti Pakistan or pro India.
These areas of Gilgit Baltistan have great strategic importance and it was because of this the British leased Gilgit Agency from the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir; and returned it only two weeks before the end of their Raj in India. This area was so important to them that when the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir refused to give them a lease, they in order to twist his arm, managed unrest in Kashmir which included the incident of 13 July 1931.
Pakistan took over these areas after the British, with help of Gilgit Scouts, managed another unrest which resulted in overthrow of the Maharaja’s appointed Governor Brigadier Gansara Singh. In order to get some kind of legality to their rule, the Pakistani government signed a treaty with their puppet rulers in Azad Kashmir. This treaty is known as the Karachi Agreement.
The government of Pakistan issued Gilgit Baltistan Ordinance last year and have made these areas a province of Pakistan without declaring it as such. In 1971 war they lost East Pakistan which was about 57 thousand square miles; and they have recovered some of that loss by annexing Gilgit Baltistan which is about 28 thousand square miles.
Gilgit Baltistan has population of just over two million. They weren’t many who opposed this Ordinance, as they expected it to bring about a system of government better than what they had experienced previously. Apart from that they were promised enormous economic rewards which have not been delivered yet.
One man – Shafqat Inquilabi had commitment to his ideology, and he loved his nation; and didn’t want it to become part of Pakistan. He thought it was humiliating that Gilgit Baltistan is annexed by an Ordinance. He decided to stand up and be counted that at least there was someone who openly opposed it. After discussing the matter with his colleagues, especially leadership of Kashmir National Party, he decided to challenge this Ordinance. In hope of getting justice and that from Pakistani rulers and Pakistani judiciary, he challenged the Ordinance in the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
In my last article on the subject titled, Gilgit Baltistan and Shafqat Inquilabi, I wrote some details of what the Pakistani secret agencies did to Shafqat Inquilabi for challenging Pakistani government over the issue of Gilgit Baltistan. This article was carried by dozens of publications and I got many emails on the subject. Some people have expressed support, and a few have suggested that propaganda has been unleashed against Shafqat Inquilabi that he has ‘compromised’ and that was why Kashmiri nationalists were not supporting him.
This allegation is ridiculous. All colonial powers want to prolong their rule in their colony and for that purpose they give rewards to those who are willing to sell their souls for material and political gains. Pakistani rulers are no exception to this rule. They have also established their rule with help of local collaborators which directly support their rule and some act as their ‘B team’; and impose themselves as ‘nationalists’. The role of these fake nationalists is to create divisions and make allegations against those who genuinely oppose the colonial rule.
About four years ago I heard Shafqat Inquilabi had compromised his position, and he was no longer a ‘nationalist’. When Pakistan annexed these areas, many ‘nationalists’ decided to remain quiet, or tried to get some rewards; but Shafqat Inquilabi was prominent among those who strongly opposed this Ordinance. Furthermore it was Shafqat Inquilabi who filed a case in the Supreme Court of Pakistan; and consequently suffered for his daring action; and yet propaganda against him is that he has ‘compromised’.
It doesn’t require rocket science to reach this conclusion that those who are spreading this propaganda are either agents of those whose interest Shafqat Inquilabi has challenged or they have personal disliking of the man or they feel threatened by his political activities, as they feel area for them to manoeuvre is getting marginalised.
Who else has compromised?
Both factions of APHC are Valley centric, their Kashmir or interest does not go beyond boundaries of the Valley, hence silence over what Pakistan does to people of Jammu and Kashmir on the other side of LOC. One could say same is the case with Yasin Malik, Shabir Shah and Sajjad Lone. He has become more pro division since becoming son in law of Amanullah Khan.
I had an interesting email regarding the issue of compromise, and it surely gives a different perspective on the matter. Without making any changes, I am producing most of this email for benefit of my readers. It reads:
‘I am very much surprised as to why Indian government does not talk about rights of people of Gilgit Baltistan? And why even the elected leadership (Omar Abdullah, Mehbooba Mufti) in Kashmir never raise enough concern over Pakistan's pact for GB year 2009?
Does it mean that India has given up its claim on the territory or does not consider GB part of Kashmir? Then why Indian Government Official Map still shows GB as part of 1947 Kashmir political map?
Also its true for GB people as well, they don’t seek any political input from Indian Administered Kashmir or even Indian government. It seems that, unlike what we hear officially from APHC, Indian or Pakistani Government is not what is actually happening on the ground. The only thing which is true on the ground and what is portrayed in news is the huge army presence in civilian areas of Kashmir Valley, which is the cause of death and other human right violations. It is portrayed as if only Valley is having consistent agitations and issues with Army and Indian Government. Rest part of Kashmir like AJK, GB, Ladhak, Jammu all seems to be contended, by and large, with what ever they have got.
It is agreed that all regions of Kashmir political entity don't protest as vehemently as Kashmir-Valley Specific. The reasons may be they are driven by religion or Pakistani agency or foreign money sources, but yes, Kashmir Valley really make a louder and consistent case than any other sub-division of Kashmir State.
What will it take to make a unified voice from all regions of Kashmir State, unanimously that we want liberation? And when will that happen? Can only Kashmir Valley stone throws and agitations and human sacrifices is enough for Kashmir resolution? Aren't the political leaders guilty of misery of common men, whom they have forced in this quagmire of never ending mess
What is the way forward? I think the way forward is to realise that we have a problem, and then to have a compromise solution. Compromise solution is to give the Kashmir state (the whole) political freedom guaranteed by United Nations, China, India and Pakistan. In return, Free Kashmir will guarantee, equal and fair treatment of all neighbours and will not give leverage to one neighbour at the cost of the other. This will include political and business opportunities as well’.
This long quotation has many important points and readers can draw their own conclusions. But it shows that people know who is doing what in name of Kashmir; and what needs to be done to end the misery of the suffering people.
However it would be pertinent to say that, at least, one political figure from the Valley has expressed his support for Shafqat Inquilabi and the cause he is promoting. That person is Hilal Ahmed War, who has expressed his full solidarity with the people of Gilgit Baltistan and openly said that these areas are part of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Hilal Ahmed War says Pakistan has no right to annex these areas.
Role of China in this matter
It would be interesting for the readers to know that China also had great input in Gilgit Baltistan Ordinance. Chinese interest in this strategically important region is well known and they have more than 12,000 army personal carrying out various projects. China has helped Pakistan enormously and all the major projects have been completed with the Chinese help, guidance and money.
China and Pakistan have signed some more major projects related to this region which include construction of Diamer Basha Dam and other dams. Apart from the skilled labour, China has agreed to completely finance the $8.5 billion project, which was previously
put at 6.5 billion. When the World Bank refused to help Pakistan, the Chinese agreed to take full responsibility for the project, but they were not willing to invest this huge amount of money in a territory legal status of which was uncertain.
The work on the project was scheduled to start in 2009, and under pressure from China the Pakistan government produced that Ordinance. They had no time to think or plan it properly; or even discuss it with their puppets in Azad Kashmir or in Gilgit Baltistan.
This adds a new twist to the tragedy. On one hand there is government of Pakistan with all its might and powerful secret agencies, and of course support of local collaborators, not to mention position of China on the subject of the Ordinance; and on other hand is Shafqat Inquilabi who has challenged that Ordinance.
Of course he has no chance of winning. So far he has stood firmly and has not given in to the pressure of the agencies to withdraw that petition from the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Apart from the Almighty the only supporter he has is newly established nationalist and secular party called Kashmir National Party.
We will continue to support Shafqat Inquilabi, even when we know we will get hurt in this fight, and we will not win it either; but at times, winning is not everything, upholding a principle is more important. Instead of becoming collaborators or agents of those who occupy us, we will rather go down fighting.
Writer is Director Diplomatic Committee of Kashmir National Party, political analyst and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs.Email:drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com
To view other articles see my blog: www.drshabirchoudhry.blogspot.com
Dr Shabir Choudhry
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)