Home / Articles / At last, Pakistan begins to own IOK!

At last, Pakistan begins to own IOK!

 India’s Minister of State for External Affairs MJ Akbar has stated that Pakistan should not internationalize the Kashmir issue. “As far as the Kashmir issue is concerned, Pakistan must not internationalize it; it is a bilateral issue.” Earlier, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s had taken a bold, though belated, decision to appoint 22 parliamentarians as his special envoys to highlight Indian brutalities and human rights abuses in Indian Occupied Kashmir (IOK) in various world capitals. “I am standing behind these special envoys to ensure their toil for highlighting the Kashmir cause resonates across the world so that I can shake the collective conscience of the international community during my address at the UN this September,” he said.

 Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had been ignoring saner voices within Pakistan to be cautious while dealing with Hindutva inspired and RSS powered Modi, however, he continued to ignore Modi’s brinkmanship and kept giving him benefit of doubt. Modi’s August 15 speech has compelled Nawaz to rethink his approach towards India, as Modi has shamelessly bared its teeth.

PM Nawaz has said that Kashmir problem is the most persistent failure of the UN and that the world body must establish its relevance. “We will also make it clear to India that it was India that approached the UN several decades back on Kashmir dispute but now it is not fulfilling its promise,” he added.

Premier Nawaz Sharif’s move has evoked a strong and angry reaction from the Indian media, which called it “provocation, needling and meddling” in the country’s affairs. The Indian Express said the Pakistan government had needled India on Kashmir by nominating special envoys. Under the headline “Pakistan provokes India”, a visibly frustrated The First Post wrote “the move can be seen as provocation from Pakistan’s side, which has been in a constant tussle with the Indian political leadership over the Kashmir issue recently”. India Today said Islamabad’s decision was “yet another attempt to meddle in India’s internal affairs”.

MJ Akbar and Indian media need to read the fine print of Simla Agreement once again that, in its opening paragraph, makes an unambiguous reference to the UN charter: “That the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations shall govern the relations between the two countries.

Pakistan's High Commissioner to India
Pakistan’s High Commissioner to India

Agreement states: “Pending the final settlement of any of the problems between the two countries, neither side shall unilaterally alter the situation and both shall prevent the organization, assistance or encouragement of any acts detrimental to the maintenance of peace and harmonious relations”. India violated this provision of Simla Agreement by occupying Siachen glacier in 1984. All efforts by Pakistan to resolve the Kashmir dispute bilaterally, since Simla Agreement (1972), have failed—hence the need to fall back to the UN. Pakistan’s High Commissioner to India aptly stated: “Pakistan will continue to extend full diplomatic, political and moral support to the valiant people of Jammu and Kashmir till they get their right to self-determination.”

Comments and analyses continue to pour-in about Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Independence Day gaffe. The United States held out a categorical assurance to Pakistan that it did not support independence for Balochistan. State Department reiterated commitment to Pakistan’s territorial integrity and distanced itself from India’s effort to stir an international controversy over Balochistan. However, earlier there had been a number of moves by the US during recent months, which were interpreted as deliberate attempts to pressurize Pakistan and appease India. It was in this backdrop that Modi became power intoxicated to go overboard in his speech. Pakistan has been informing the international community that India and Afghanistan are stoking unrest in Baluchistan, FATA and a number of urban centres, however, it got little acceptance. Thanks to Modi’s hubris, Pakistan’s stance stands vindicated.  Statement by the State Department is a rebuke to the India PM as it is a straight forward message that the international community would not buy his propaganda; and that he should better focus on improving the HR situation in Indian Occupied Kashmir (IOK).

Majority of credible analysts had all along maintained the existence of an Indo-Afghan nexus with the objective to destabilize Pakistan, especially Balochistan and FATA. Earlier both these counties were in a denial mode, however with the ascent of hardliner Narendra Modi to Prime Ministerial slot, caution began to be thrown to wind, and ultimate came on August 15.

These days Modi is busy in getting as many opportunists on-board his Balochistan bandwagon as possible, those on Indian pay role are jumping as a matter of compulsion. Anti-state slogans in Karachi were also orchestrated by one of RAW protégé—the MQM London chief—to dilute the impact of Modi’s goof-up. Due to fierce pro-Pakistan reaction by the MQM rank and file, he has lost control over his party, at least for the time being.

India’s international protégé former Afghan President Hamid Karzai was the only non-Indian guy to subscribe to Modi’s inflammatory speech. Karzai rushed to confession on August 20 about his involvement in meddling in Pakistan’s internal affairs.  Karzai expressed empathy with the people of Balochistan: “The issue of Balochis and their rights and need for them to have peace is something that we commiserate, we understand the remarks of the Prime Minister of India. We wish Balochistan and its people very well… In other words, we understand the remarks of Prime Minister Modi and I appreciate it,” said Karzai.

During his difficult times, Pakistan in general and province of Balochistan in particular had hosted Karzai and his family as Afghan refugee for years. Pakistan’s say was also critical in his elevation to presidency of Afghanistan during Bonn I conference, in 2001. And this is how he has chosen to pay back. He chose to express his diatribe right from the Indian capital. Other clients of Modi are self-exiled Baloch heretics living in Europe. India has been propping up these separatists since decades, facilitating them in cash and kind, enabling their travel and providing them platform to make inflammatory orations against Pakistan.

Divya Kashore opined in his article “Indian flags set ablaze in Balochistan following Narendra Modi’s I-Day diatribe against Pakistan”, carried by International Business Times on August 19 stated that  Anti-India protests had erupted in Balochistan over a statement made by Indian Prime Minister.

In Quetta, members of “Pakistan Workers Party” marched on August 18 to condemn Modi. Civil society activists and several other political organisations also took part in the march demanding that Pakistan government take the issue to the international forum. “The demonstrators set ablaze Indian flags and burnt effigies of Modi. They stated that terrorism in Balochistan is funded by India”.

Within hours of Modi’s provocative speech, Pakistan had proposed settlement of Kashmir dispute through its foreign secretary’s letter to find solution to Kashmir dispute — bilaterally— in line with both countries’ responsibilities in the context of Kashmir related UNSC resolutions. On August 19, Pakistan’s Foreign Secretary once again invited his Indian counterpart for talks. In a reply to Pakistani Foreign Secretary’s second letter, India has sought talks on alleged cross-border terrorism in the IOK. Stating India’s willingness to engage in foreign secretary-level talks but not on issues chosen by Pakistan. At the weekly news briefing on August 25, Foreign Office spokesperson said India would always hide behind ‘excuses’ not to hold the dialogue.

Conclusion

While briefing the ambassadors of P-5 and the EU, on August 27, Adviser on Foreign Affairs, Sartaj Aziz expressed his regrets over the Indian decision saying Pakistan has always demonstrated willingness to hold talks with the Indian side but it has received the same response from the other side. The Adviser said the international community, has an important role to uphold the principles of human rights and international humanitarian law. The P-5 and EU Ambassadors appreciated Pakistan’s readiness for dialogue. Hopefully, concerted multidimensional efforts by the government of Pakistan would soon begin to yield results.

 

 

 

 

About admin

Check Also

Time to create Rakhine as a Muslim State for Rohingyas

Myanmar insists that Rohingyas are interlopers from Bangladesh despite most of them living for generations in western Rakhine state of Myanmar, they have long been denied basic political rights and liberties. Bangladesh does not accept that Rohingyas have a Bengali lineage. Anthropologists believe that Rohingya roots trace back to Saudi Arabia, who migrated to Myanmar (Burma) around 7th & 8th century AC. Except Bangladesh and Myanmar who think such a return as a good idea, there are hardly any buyers of such forced eviction. United Nations doesn’t want forced eviction to happen. United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, warned that forcing the first batch of about 2,200 Rohingya living in refugee camps to ground zero of mass violence against the minority Muslim group would be a “clear violation” of core international legal principles. Human Rights groups have called the move “dangerous and premature.” A number of Human Rights groups say “they are shocked”. Even the people who will be affected the most, Rohingya Muslims from Myanmar, are upset that their future, once again, is being decided without their input.So far Aung Suu Kyi’s leadership performance has been derisive. No one expected governing to be easy for her, as country’s leader. Her election had ended more than a half-century of military rule; yet the hegemony has not retrieved; and Bonapartism is galore. In pursuit of her over ambitious political objectives, she has been used and discredited by Junta. Suu Kyi had declared ending the long-running ethnic insurgencies that have torn the country apart as her top priority, but her lacklustre peace effort has proved ineffective. Ever since fighting between government forces and ethnic groups has been spiralling up. Though World has been shocked by reports that the military has carried out atrocities, including rape and murder, against the Rohingya, Aung Suu has said little on the matter and done even lesser. Her government’s growing suppression of speech on the Internet seems perverse for a onetime democracy icon who spent 15 years under house arrest. No wonders her popularity is on decline. Growth has slowed and foreign investment has dipped significantly. Suu Kyi faces daunting challenges. In rebuilding the country, she must overcome decades of mismanagement and profiteering by previous military governments that enriched the generals and their cronies and brought the economy to its knees. The biggest stain on Suu Kyi’s record may be her government’s brutal treatment of the Rohingya, and her tepid response to it. Prevailing World order is known for acting very fast in Muslim versus non-Muslim conflicts where outcome is likely to benefit non-Muslims. And it shows criminal negligence when Muslims are likely to gain through political settlement of any such conflict. When pushed too hard, conflict is settled in a way that it’s a paralytic outcome, ensuring mitigation of equitable advantage to Muslim faction of population. Some of the conflicts like Kashmir and Palestine are deliberately kept on back burners as their settlement would benefit Muslim segment of respective population. Myanmar’s Rohingya conflict also falls in “let ferment” category. Likewise is the situation about Afghan and Yemen crisis, as well as simmering Middle East and North African Muslim countries. Muslims are right to assume that current World Order has not served them a fair deal; and unless there is a significant change in its format, Muslims will continue to be marginalised at state, community and individual levels. But the billion dollar question is that how long the current World Political Order would take to assume ownership of Myanmar crisis? Time has already reached for declaring Rakhine as a sovereign State where Rohingyas could live peacefully and practice their religion peacefully.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *