Pakistan Defence Journal

Pakistani UN Peacekeeping troops rescued Turkish Ambassador at Ivory Coast

2011-04-15T18:22:00.001-04:00

Pakistan Army troops rescued Turkish Ambassador at Ivory Coast Mr Yekcin Kaga Erensoi alongwith three other staff members, Mr Golant, Mr Mahmut (third Secretary) and Mr Ali Ahisk at Ivory Coast (Abijan) on 11 April 2011. Turkish Ambassador was trapped in a Hotel in a volatile situation where gun battle was going on in rival factions when he asked Pakistani troops for help Pakistani troops immediately rushed and rescued the Turkish Embassy staff.

Nine Nigerian citizens who were trapped in troubled area were also rescued by Pakistani troops.

It is pertinent to mention that Pakistan Army troops as part of UN Contingent are playing an active role in saving here the lives of the innocent people of Côte d'Ivoire.

Pakistani troops have performed extremely well by protecting foreign embassies and effectively controlling the situation in their area of responsibility. United Nations have greatly appreciated Pakistani Peacekeeper’s contributions in restoring peace in the country.

Pakistan troops are deployed in Ivory Coast since 2004 and their role has been commendable as UN Peacekeepers. During last Presidential elections an additional batch of Pakistani troops was specially moved from Liberia to establish law and order in the most turbulent areas of Ivory Coast. Pakistani troops executed the assigned task in a befitting manner which was highly appreciated by UN authorities.

Source: http://www.ispr.gov.pk/front/main.asp?o=t-press_release&id=1717#pr_link1717

Pakistan Partially Unblocks Access to YouTube

2010-05-27T09:35:00.000-04:00

John Ribeiro, IDG News

May 27, 2010 6:10 am

Pakistan relaxed its block on YouTube on Wednesday evening, but a similar ban on Facebook remains in place. The country's telecommunications regulator, Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA), last week ordered operators to block YouTube, citing sacrilegious content on it.

While the authority is removing its blanket ban on YouTube, objectionable links on the site will remain blocked, PTA spokesman Khurram A. Mehran said in an email on Thursday.

On May 19, the Lahore High Court ordered the PTA to block Facebook until May 31. It was ruling on a petition by a lawyers' organization in Pakistan which objected to a page on the web site called "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day!" that invited users to draw cartoons of the prophet Mohammed.
There were also large protests on the streets of Pakistan against the page and Facebook.
Depictions of the prophet are prohibited in some Islamic traditions.

The block on Facebook on May 19 was followed the next day by a block of the YouTube web site. About 450 other links on the Internet were also blocked because of derogatory content, the PTA said.
In a post on Wednesday on his recently opened Twitter account, Pakistan's Interior Minister Rehman Malik said that the Pakistan cabinet accepted his proposal at a meeting on Wednesday to block only the objectionable sections on Facebook and YouTube.

However the block on Facebook is not likely to be removed until the Lahore High Court decides on the lawyers' petition on May 31, as it is still under judicial review, according to Mehran.
Facebook said in a statement last week that it was disappointed with the Pakistani court's decision to block Facebook without warning. It said that it was analyzing the situation and the legal considerations, and will take appropriate action, which may include making the content inaccessible to users in Pakistan.
Facebook has already made the page inaccessible in India, at the request of Indian authorities.

Source: http://www.pcworld.com/article/197310/pakistan_partially_unblocks_access_to_youtube.html

US Court Declares Dr Aafia Siddiqui Guilty

2010-02-10T13:35:00.002-05:00

NEW YORK: US Court Wednesday held Dr Aafia Siddiqui–a US-educated Pakistani woman as guilty of trying to kill American servicemen in Afghanistan.

The court declared its verdict on Dr Siddiqui at 2pm (local time).

Aafia Siddiqui, 37, a neuroscientist trained at the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was found guilty on all charges by a jury in federal court.

She was accused of being a would-be terrorist who in July 2008 grabbed a rifle at an Afghan police station where she was being interrogated and tried to gun down a group of US servicemen.

Dr Aafia was present at the time of the verdict. She listened to the verdict with great fortitude. Also, her brother was present on the occasion.

Source: http://rightnreal.com/us-court-declares-dr-aafia-siddiqui-guilty/

My Op:

No sufficient evidence has been presented against Dr. Aafia Siddiqui. Her accusers claim she had snatched an M4 rifle at baghram base which she allegedly tried to shoot her captors, NO finger prints of her or shell casings where ever found on the M4 rifle.

No beyond-a-reasonable doubt connection to Al-Qaeda and Dr. Aafia Siddiqui have been found.

I believe the Pakistan Government must exercise all it's might in forcing the US to set free Dr. Aafia Siddiqui. A strong message ought to be sent to the White House, on the diplomatic front and other vital fronts where pressure can be applied on Washington. This unjust court ruling must be turned over and Dr. Aafia Siddiqui must be set free.

What a lowly and miserable shame for our beloved nation of Pakistan both at home and abroad.

One of our educated, dignified, mother, and Doctor, Dr. Aafia Siddiqui tortured, imprisoned, falsely accused, and treated like a criminal/terrorist....

I don't understand how any true Pakistani will forever be able to forget and forgive such acts.

Pakistan may adopt tough stance over Indian talks offer

2010-02-09T00:34:00.000-05:00

* Diplomats say Islamabad could seek ‘result-oriented dialogue’ linked to timeline for resolution of outstanding issues

By Sajjad Malik

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan might adopt a tough stance over India’s offer for talks and press for “result-oriented dialogue” linked to a timeline for the resolution of all outstanding issues between the two countries, including the Kashmir dispute, according to diplomatic sources.

The sources said Pakistan was wary of an “open-ended” peace process that could linger on for years without any tangible progress on key issues that had been a thorn in the side of relations for decades.

“We are not interested in just talks ... [we are looking for] a fruitful engagement that will result in the solution of real problems and help bring peace,” said the sources.

Pakistan would also seek India’s assurance that New Delhi would not unilaterally suspend the peace process in case of a terrorist attack by “non-state actors”.

They said Pakistan was serious about addressing all issues with India, and would hold in-depth discussions on the offer for talks tomorrow (Wednesday) to decide the key issues related to dialogue with India.

“We are expecting a candid exchange of views on all aspects of relations with India, including the agenda of the talks ... there are several issues, such as India’s refusal to resume the composite dialogue immediately,” they said.

Some diplomats believe that India is not sincere in the context of the resumption of the peace process and New Delhi had only agreed to engage Pakistan under increased foreign pressure and the ”looming loss of its influence in Afghanistan” because of Pakistan’s new role in reintegrating “peace loving” Taliban in the Afghan society.

The sources said Pakistan had already called back Indian High Commissioner Shahid Malik – who is arriving today (Tuesday) to attend the consultations at the Foreign Office and brief the high-ups on his meetings with Indian diplomats.

The peace process was suspended after the Mumbai terror attacks in November 2008. While Pakistan had perpetually sought the resumption of the peace talks, India had been refusing to come to the negotiations table until Pakistan brought the perpetrators of the attacks to justice. India has said that it has made the offer with “an open and positive” mind. While India has now agreed to talks, it is reluctant to fully restore the composite dialogue under domestic compulsions.

Analysts believe that both countries would have to come out of their “fixation” for any solution to bilateral problems.

Source: http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\02\09\story_9-2-2010_pg7_15

China mulls setting up military base in Pakistan

2010-02-01T22:06:00.002-05:00

Picture courtesy of Armybase.us

Saibal Dasgupta, TNN, 28 January 2010, 07:58pm IST

BEIJING: China has signaled it wants to go the US way and set up military bases in overseas locations that would possibly include Pakistan. The obvious purpose would be to exert pressure on India as well as counter US influence in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

"(So) it is baseless to say that we will not set up any military bases in future because we have never sent troops abroad," an article published on Thursday at a Chinese government website said. "It is our right," the article said and went on to suggest that it would be done in the neighborhood, possibly Pakistan.

"As for the military aspect, we should be able to conduct the retaliatory attack within the country or at the neighboring area of our potential enemies. We should also be able to put pressure on the potential enemies' overseas interests," it said.

A military base in Pakistan will also help China keep a check on Muslim Uighur separatists fighting for an independent nation in its western region of Xingjian, which borders the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan. Beijing recently signed an agreement with the local government of NWFP in order to keep a close watch on the movement of Uighur ultras.

"I have personally felt for sometime that China might one day build a military base in India's neighborhood. China built the Gadwar port in Pakistan and is now broadening the Karokoram highway. These facilities can always be put to military use when the need arises," Ramesh V Phadke, former Air Commodore and advisor to the Institute of Defense Studies told TNN.

Phadke said the article in very significant. "The purpose may be to see how the international community reacts to it," he said.

China, which has no military bases outside its territory, has often criticized the United States for operating such overseas bases. It has not just changed its standpoint but also wants to enter the lucrative protection business.

"With further development, China will be in great demand of the military protection," the article said. Pakistan, which buys 70% of its military hardware from China, is likely to be an eager buyer for such protection. Beijing may also be able to pressurize Islamabad to accept its diktat using the threat of withholding military supplies.

A Pakistani expert on China-Pakistan relationship has a different view on the subject. "The Americans had a base in the past and it caused a political stink. I don’t think it would be politically possible for the Pakistani government to openly allow China to set up a military base," he said while requesting anonymity. Pakistan might allow use of its military facilities without publicly announcing it, he said.

A Chinese military base can tackle several international relations issues, it said. One of them is "the relationship between the base troops and the countries neighboring to the host country." This is another indication that Beijing is considering Pakistan as a possible base. China’s argument is that a foreign base would actually help regional stability.

"If the base troops can maintain the regional stability, it will be probably welcomed by all the countries in the region," the article said. Beijing is conscious that the move might result in opposition from the US, UK and France which has overseas military bases.

“Thirdly, the relationship between the big countries in the world. The establishment of the troop bases is sensitive to those big countries which have already set up the bases abroad," the article said.

Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/china/China-mulls-setting-up-military-base-in-Pakistan/articleshow/5510235.cms

My Op:

Such a monumental decision will take careful analysis and intense strategic planning on our part, before anything such as what is being allegedly being proposed can be finalized.

Several things must be taken into factor.

1) The sentiment of the Balochi people and what they think about a Chinese MB in their province, obviously the base would be in a remote part of Balochistan nonetheless their support or tolerance of a foreign MB will be critical.

2) Time-span

3) Roles and regulations on the activity of a foreign MB in Pakistan territory.

4) The purpose of this Chinese MB must be clearly defined.

"The time is right to revive Balochistan's geopolitical importance on national and international level and a chinese base is the perfect tool to serve mutual interests."- Dutch commentator on Pakistan Affairs.

Is it possible to revive Balochistan's geopolitical importance on a national and international level without a Chinese base? Also I got news for you, Balochistan's geopolitical importance on the inter/national stage has already been revived, not by us, not by the Chinese, but by other powers and factors.

You seriously have to think about these things before finalizing such a major plan and maneuver.

Pakistan offers training to Afghanistan army and police: Qureshi

2010-01-29T21:37:00.001-05:00

LONDON: Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi said that Pakistan has offered training to Afghanistan army and police and also offered to increase cooperation in various fields with Afghanistan.

Talking to a private TV channel He said that in the conference the importance of Pakistan was admitted and besides military options, other options for the solution of Afghanistan issue were also discussed." We would have to move forward by keeping the ground realities in mind, " adding, " the Afghanistan government has sought help from Pakistan and Saudi Arab in talks with Taliban".

Qureshi said that Afghanistan has to prepare 0.3 million army and police officials by 2011.
"According to Pakistan point of view, the conference was very successful and addressing our reservations in it is our great success", he added. He said that Hamid Karzai has sought five years time for normalizing the situation in his country.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said the international conference in London on Afghanistan’s future, marked a "decisive" moment in Afghanistan’s history.

While he warned that British and international troops fighting the Taliban would face more "tough times" ahead, he said a process was being put in place that would enable them to return home.

"It will take time but I believe that the conditions set out in the plan that we will sign up to today can be met sooner than many expect and, as a result, the process of handover district-by-district will begin later this year," he said Speaking to a 60-nation conference in London.

"It will mark the beginning of a new phase and a decisive step towards Afghans taking responsibility for their own security."

Mr Brown backed President Hamid Karzai’s plan to re-integrate Taliban fighters who are prepared to lay down their arms and renounce violence.

"As an international community responding to President Karzai’s leadership, we are today establishing an international trust fund to finance this peace and re-integration programme to provide an economic alternative to those who have none," he said.

"But for those insurgents who refuse to accept the conditions for re-integration, we have no choice but to pursue them militarily."

In his opening address, Mr Karzai said a national council for peace, reconciliation and re-integration would be established in Afghanistan.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai called on Saudi Arabia on Thursday to play a prominent role in bringing peace to Afghanistan.He said he would call a loya jirga, or council of elders, to discuss how to bring about reconciliation in Afghanistan.

"We will establish a national council for peace and reconciliation and reintegration, followed by a peace jirga in Afghanistan," he said. "We hope His Majesty (Saudi) King Abdullah bin Abdul-Aziz will kindly play a prominent role to guide and assist the peace process."
Karzai also said stability in Afghanistan depended not just on what happened inside the country but also on its neighbours. "We ask all our neighbours, particularly Pakistan, to support our peace and reconciliation effort," he said. He also urged Afghan insurgents to sever ties with al Qaeda.
The Afghan Foreign minister of Afghanistan Rangeen Dadfur Spanta has termed the, establishing of peace in Afghanistan as a great challenge.

UK Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs David Miliband has also announced U$. 140 million dollars for Afghanistan. He said that the aim of the conference was to unite the neighboring countries of Afghanistan.

He elaborated that the situation of Pakistan and Afghanistan were different from each other. And said that more powers would have to be given to Afghan people, as the poor prevalent situation could be improved with dialogue and not only by war.
However, the Taliban have rejected the declaration of London conference, saying, it was nothing more than a western propaganda.

Mullah Zaeef said that relieving the occupation of Afghanistan by foreign forces was the first priority, and stressed that US would have to leave Afghanistan.

Source: http://www.onlinenews.com.pk/details.php?id=157894

Govt decides to expand Pak missile program

2010-01-20T23:53:00.000-05:00

Upadated on: 20 Jan 10 09:29 PM

Staff Report

ISLAMABAD: The government has decided to expand its nuclear program, sources told SAMAA on Wednesday.

The government has asked the Finance Ministry tto provide funds to upgrade the missile program of the country.

Prime Minister Syed yousuf Raza Gilani presided the meeting of the strategic planing division on January 19, 2010. Finance Minister Shaukat Tareen, Chairman Joints Chief of Staff Committee General Tariq Majeed and Director General Strategic and Planning Division also joined the meeting, sources added.

The members of the meeting approved to supgrade the missile program of the country to maintain balance of power in the region, sources added.

The Finance Ministry has been instructed to provide resources for upgradation of the missile program, sources added. SAMAA

Source: http://www.samaa.tv/News16344-Govt_decides_to_expand_Pak_missile_program.aspx

Pakistan, China to enhance military cooperation

2010-01-17T19:46:00.002-05:00

Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani talking to China’s Deputy Chief of the People’s Liberation Army General Staff, General Ma Xiaotian. – APP (Picture from Dawn.com)

Chinese Defense Minister Liang Guanglie (R) meets with Noman Bashir, visiting Pakistani chief of the naval staff, in Beijing, Dec. 18, 2009. (Xinhua/Zhang Duo)

Sunday 17 Jan 2010

Islamabad, Jan 17 : Pakistan and China have inked an agreement for further strengthening defence production, staging joint military exercises and training military officers.

Quoting sources, Online news agency reported Sunday the agreement was signed during the visit here of Chinese Deputy Chief of General Staff Gen. Ma Xiaotian.

Under the agreement, Pakistan and China have agreed that both countries would work jointly for strategic stability in the region and to enhance cooperation between institutions of defence production, the sources said.

It was also agreed that both countries would also ensure the implementation of memorandums of understanding signed in the past on the supply of latest planes and ships and any obstacles in the way would be removed through talks.

The sources further said that both countries agreed on the training of soldiers and frequent visits of senior military officers and contacts between them, adding that the agreement will have far-reaching impact on the relations between the two countries.

Pakistan-China relations began in 1950 when this country was among the first to break ties with Taiwan and recognise the People's Republic of China.

Following the Sino-Indian hostilities of 1962, Pakistan's relations with China became stronger. Since then, the two countries have regularly exchanged high-level visits, resulting in a variety of agreements.

The relationship has been described by Chinese President Hu Jintao as "higher than the mountains and deeper than the oceans".

Of late, military cooperation has deepened with joint projects producing armaments ranging from fighter jets to guided missile frigates.

Copyright Indo Asian News

Source: http://www.littleabout.com/news/58891,pakistan-china-enhance-military-cooperation.html

Black Water involved in Charsadda (Pakistan) Car Blast (Capital Talk with Hamid Mir)

2010-01-06T00:02:00.002-05:00

Pakistan captures Red Fort of Delhi (Artwork)

2009-12-30T16:19:00.001-05:00

Made by me.

Wanted For Treason Poster

2009-12-21T16:01:00.000-05:00

New "Wanted for Treason" Poster, made by me.

Supreme Court cracks down on corrupt Politicians

2009-12-18T14:58:00.002-05:00

Pakistan Ministers Are Called Before the Courts

By JANE PERLEZ and SALMAN MASOOD
Published: December 18, 2009

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — A sweeping Supreme Court decision that reopened corruption cases against thousands of politicians, including President Asif Ali Zardari, reverberated through the government Friday as important ministers were barred from leaving the country and ordered to appear before the courts in the coming weeks.

Among those immediately affected were the interior minister, Rehman Malik, who is considered particularly close to the United States, and the Defense Minister, Ahmed Mukhtar, raising concerns about how effectively the Zardari government, under pressure from a violent Islamic insurgency, could continue to function.

The two men were among 247 officials, also including Salman Farooki, the chief of staff to Mr. Zardari, placed on what is known as an exit control list, barring them from leaving Pakistan, a measure Pakistan authorities often use to ensure those under criminal investigation do not abscond.

At least 52 politicians were called to appear before corruption courts, according to the National Accountability Bureau, the anticorruption unit that was ordered by the Supreme Court on Wednesday to act expeditiously in reopening the cases.

By the end of Friday, Mr. Farooki had won an interim bail order from the Sindh High Court, a measure that would prevent him from being arrested, legal experts said.

Mr. Malik had also been ordered to appear before the Sindh High Court, according to a report on Express television. Attempts to reach a spokesman for Mr. Malik were unsuccessful.

The Constitution allows President Zardari enjoys immunity under the Constitution from prosecution. He remained defiant Friday against calls from the main opposition party that he step down.

Moreover, he had no intention to ask cabinet ministers or colleagues facing corruption charges to quit either, a media adviser, Farahnaz Ispahani, said Friday.

“The president is fighting fit,” Ms. Ispahani said. “The president was clear that our Pakistan Peoples Party ministers would not be asked to resign merely on the basis of accusation.”

A cabinet reshuffle in which “some people will be out and some will be moved,” would be the main response to the revocation of the amnesty by the Supreme Court, Ms. Ispahani said.

But as Mr. Zardari and his party, the Pakistan Peoples Party, the biggest in Pakistan, battled to survive, a groundswell of media and public opinion seemed to exult in the decisiveness of the Supreme Court decision, which suggested there would no longer be a tolerant attitude toward corruption among politicians in Pakistan.“We’ve never seen the mighty in this country held accountable,” said Babar Sattar, a Harvard-trained constitutional lawyer.

Now that the court, backed by public opinion, had come down hard on corruption in a way not seen before in Pakistan, the affected politicians were not sure how to react, Mr. Sattar said.

There was no sign Friday that the army, which has been increasingly at odds with Mr. Zardari, was aiming to take control.

Behind the scenes, the army has been critical of Mr. Zardari, in part because of the president’s early move to put a civilian in charge of the country’ premier spy agency, the powerful Inter-Services Intelligence agency, and in part because of his gestures of conciliation toward India, Pakistan’s archenemy.

The army has also grown increasingly wary of Mr. Zardari as an aura of corruption has continued to mount around his government.

The reputation of the army, stained after the president and military chief at the time, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, imposed emergency rule in November 2007, has grown in the past few months as it fights Taliban militants, and it would benefit further because of the severity of the Supreme Court decision against the civilian government, analysts said.

Many of the corruption cases that the Supreme Court said must be reopened originate from the 1990s, including cases against Mr. Zardari, who served 11 years in jail. Mr. Zardari contends he was never convicted, a signal he and his supporters say shows his innocence.

Lawyers affiliated with the opposition party Pakistan Muslim League and some legal experts dispute Mr. Zardari’s insistence that he was not convicted, citing a conviction in Switzerland that Mr. Zardari appealed.

That case was withdrawn by the Pakistani government in 2007 under the provisions of the amnesty against corruption cases imposed by General Musharraf, who later resigned his military post. Lawyers affiliated with the Muslim League also insist that Mr. Zardari carries a conviction for failing to appear when ordered to do so by the Lahore High Court after he left the country in 2004.

In its ruling Wednesday, the Supreme Court said the Musharraf government had acted improperly in withdrawing the case in Switzerland. It asked the Swiss authorities to resume the proceedings. Swiss officials backed away from the Supreme Court’s demand, saying Thursday the case would not be reopened unless Pakistan started proceedings against Mr. Zardari.

In tackling the issue of corruption, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, who likes to see himself as the “people’s judge” has gone beyond rolling back the amnesty on individual corruption cases.

This week, the court also took exception to the government removing the chief of the country’s main investigative agency.

In a separate ruling from lifting the amnesty, the court ordered the government to reinstate, the head of the Federal Investigations Agency, Tariq Khosa, who had been dismissed by Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani .

Mr. Khosa, who was described in the Pakistani press as the country’s toughest corruption fighter, was removed from his job earlier this month while he was in the midst of investigating why the government-run Pakistan Steel Mill had suddenly lost large amounts of money during the first 15 months of Mr. Zardari’s tenure.

The mill, the biggest in the country, had made steady profits in the previous eight years.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/19/world/asia/19pstan.html

This is perhaps a turning point for Pakistan, an independent judicial system/Supreme Court holding corrupt politicians accountable, the essence of every great nation. This is what many Pakistanis have been waiting for.

World's Top Ten Militaries

2009-12-17T01:54:00.002-05:00

1) USA -(AMP)1,426,026 Nuclear Power - 3,575 Strategic Nukes est.

2) Russia -(AMP)1,037,000 , Nuclear Power 3,083 Strategic Nukes est.

3) China -(AMP)2,255,000, Nuclear Power - 180 Strategic Nukes est.

4) United Kingdom (AMP)187,970 , Nuclear Power 160 Nukes est.

5) France (AMP) 361,085 , Nuclear Power - 300 Strategic Nukes est.

6) Zionist/Israel (AMP)168,000 , Nuclear Power - 80+ Strategic Nukes est.

7) Pakistan (AMP) 715,000 , Nuclear Power - 60 Strategic Nukes est.

8) India (AMP) 1,325,000 Nuclear Power - 50 Strategic Nukes est.

9) Turkey (AMP) 514,850

10) North Korea (AMP) 1,106,000 , Nuclear Power 2-10 Strategic Nukes est.

KEY: (AMP)= Active Military Personnel, "Strategic Nukes" means how many Nuclear Weapons currently ready for use at any given moment.

Power ranking is determined by

1)Man power
2)War/battle record
3)Military/Martial Tradition & History
4)Nuclear Power Weapon status
5)Technological capability
6)Nature/Structure of the Military
7)Weaponry
8)Leadership
9)Economy/ Military Expenditure
10)Also the "surprise" element.

Be aware that some Militaries ranked below 5 CAN under various conditions and various means defeat a Military Above it's own Rank.

Sources:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/summary.htm

http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nuclearweapons/nukestatus.html

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762462.html

http://www.forexpm.com/gdp-list-the-richest-countries-in-the-world/

Share your "World's Top Ten Militaries" list!

J-10: The New Cornerstone of Sino-Pakistani Defense Cooperation

2009-12-17T00:18:00.003-05:00

Publication: China Brief Volume: 9 Issue: 25
December 16, 2009
Category: China Brief, Home Page, Military/Security, China and the Asia-Pacific, South Asia, Featured
By: Tarique Niazi

China and Pakistan have forged a formidable partnership in high-tech defense production. This partnership is born of their ever-deepening military and strategic cooperation that is also reflective of the burgeoning capacity of China's defense industries and the budding Sino-Pakistani defense relationship. The epitome of this bilateralism is the recent revelation that the Chinese have agreed to the sale of 36 J-10B fighter jets to Pakistan (Financial Times, November 10). The J-10 aircrafts are known to be one of the most advanced weapon systems in China’s arsenal, of which Pakistan will be the first recipient. With the delivery of 36 fighter jets, the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) will raise two fighting squadrons that will further sharpen its combativeness. The J-10 deal was reportedly sealed for a whopping $1.4 billion, which accounts for 70 percent of Chinese average arms sales of $2 billion a year (China Brief, July 9).

The J-10 Sale Epitomizes Strategic Alliance

The deal marks the depth of a strategic alliance between Beijing and Islamabad. Some reports suggest that Pakistan is actually seeking 150 J-10 fighter jets, which go by Chengdu Jian-10 in China and F-10 in Pakistan, for a sum of $6 billion (The Hindu, November 11). The Pakistani government, however, dismisses such reports as inflated (Financial Times, November 10). Although Pakistan has not yet made the deal public, its prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, on November 23, confirmed that “his country is in talks with China for securing the J-10s” [1]. Pakistan turned to China for these aircraft in 2006 after it failed to secure the F-16s from the United States (Dawn, May 1, 2006). General Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan’s former military ruler, who negotiated the deal during his visit to China in 2006, is the real architect of this grand sale (The Hindu, November 11).

The J-10s are China’s [fourth] generation fighter aircraft that it has indigenously developed and manufactured at the Chengdu Aircraft Industry (CAI). Some observers, however, believe that J-10s are China’s fourth generation aircraft. “This aircraft is a cousin to the Israeli Lavi (upon which it is based) and roughly equivalent in capabilities to the U.S. F-16C flown by several air forces around the world” (See "China’s Re-emergence as an Arms Dealer: The Return of the King?" China Brief, July 9). The J-10s started development in the mid-1980s and finally entered production for the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) about three or four years ago. Aviation experts rank them below the F-16s, the Swedish Gripen and other smaller combat aircraft (China Brief, July 9). According to a report in The Hindu (November 11), China is working on developing its fourth generation fighter jets as well. The United States, The Hindu report further claims, is the only country that possesses a fourth generation combat aircraft—the F-22s. Yet aviation experts believe the F-22s are fifth generation fighter jets. Chinese Deputy Commander of the PLAAF General He Weirong claimed that “China would operationalize its very own fourth generation aircraft in the next eight or ten years” (The Hindu, November 11). The Chinese official further claimed that the fourth generation planes would “match or exceed the capacity of similar jets in existence today” (The Hindu, November 11).

In anticipation, China is also training Pakistani fighter pilots for flying the fourth generation combat aircraft. On January 16, it delivered eight Karakoram K-8P trainer jets to Pakistan for this purpose. According to an official statement, the K-8P jets had enhanced the basic training of PAF pilots and provided a “potent platform for their smooth transition to more challenging fourth generation fighter aircraft” (The Asian Defence, January 16). The K-8P is an advanced trainer jet that has been jointly developed by China and Pakistan. It is already in service at the PAF Academy. At the handing-over ceremony for the K-8Ps, a visiting Chinese delegation as well as high-ranking PAF officers were in attendance.

China’s sale of the J-10 fighters to Pakistan, however, signals the depth of its strategic alliance with Pakistan. Pakistan will be the first country to receive the most advanced Chinese aircraft, which speaks volumes to Chinese faith in its strategic partnership with Pakistan. Defense analysts, however, believe that the sale sends an important message to the world that China’s “defense capability is growing rapidly” (Financial Times, November 10). China-Pakistan military relations spanned over 43 years, starting in 1966 when China provided Pakistan with F-6s, which were followed by the successive supply of such aircraft as FT5, A5, F-7P, F-7PG and K-8 (Jang, November 22).

These relations continue to grow with high-level exchanges in the defense sector. As recently as October of this year, Chinese Vice-Minister Chen Qiufa, administrator of China’s State Administration for Science, Technology & Industry for National Defense (SASTIND), led a delegation of Chinese defense-companies to Pakistan. He called on Prime Minister Gilani and discussed cooperation in the JF-17 Thunder Project, Al Khalid tank, F-22 frigates, Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS), and aircraft and naval ships (APP, October 17). The Chinese delegation included representatives from China's missile technology firm Poly Technologies as well as Aviation Industries Corp. of China, China Shipbuilding Industry Corporation, China Electronics Technology Group and China North Industry Corporation.

Although there is a proliferation of joint defense projects between China and Pakistan, their collaboration in aviation industry has peaked at the turn of the millennium. The mainstay of their joint defense production is the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC) in Kamra (Punjab), which services, assembles and manufactures fighter and trainer aircraft. The PAC is rated as the world’s third largest assembly plant. Initially, it was founded with Chinese assistance to rebuild Chinese aircraft in the PAF fleet, which included Shenyang F-6 (now retired), Nanchang A-5, F-7 combat aircraft, Shenyang FT-5 and FT-6 Jet trainer aircraft. The PAC also houses the Kamra Radar and Avionics Factory (KARF), which is meant to assemble and overhaul airborne as well as ground-based radar systems, electronics, and avionics. The KARF, which is ISO-9002 certified, has upgraded the PAF Chengdu F-7P interceptor fleet. Over time, the PAC has expanded its operation into aircraft manufacturing, and built a specialized manufacturing unit in the 1980s: The Aircraft Manufacturing Factory (AMF). The AMF got noticed in the region when it partnered with the Hongdu Aviation Industry Group of China to design, develop and coproduce the K-8 Karakoram (Hongdu JL-8), which is an advanced jet trainer. The AMF’s flagship project, however, is the Sino-Pakistani joint production and manufacture of the JF-17 Thunder aircraft, which it is producing with the Chengdu Aircraft Industry (CAI).

JF-17 Thunder Makes Over the PAF

In recent history, China and Pakistan set out for the joint production of JF-17 combat aircraft that both countries consider a substitute for U.S. F-16s. Pakistan’s indigenous manufacture of the first JF-17 (which goes by FC-1 in China) came to fruition on November 23, when Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC), an arm of the Pakistan Air Force, turned it over to the PAF to the chants of “Long Live Pak-China Friendship” (The News International, November 24).

Pakistan’s Prime Minister, Pakistan Chief of Army Staff and Chinese Ambassador to Pakistan, Lou Zhaohui, were among the dignitaries who attended the handing-over ceremony. Chinese Ambassador Zhaohui, speaking on the occasion, told his audience: “China wants to further broaden the defense cooperation with Pakistan” (Jang, November 23). The PAF already has 10 JF-17s, which were produced in China, in its fleet. The JF-17 project began in 1992, under which China agreed to transfer technology for the aircraft’s joint production. The project was hampered in 1999, when Pakistan came under proliferation sanctions. It gained momentum in 2001.

On September 3, 2003, its prototype, which was manufactured in China, conducted the first test flight. The PAF claims that the JF-17s, with a glass cockpit and modern avionics, are comparable to any fighter plane (Jang, November 23). It is a lightweight combat jet, fitted with turbofan engine, advanced flight control, and the most advanced weapons delivery system. As a supersonic plane, its speed is 1.6 times the speed of its sound, and its ability to refuel midair makes it a “stand-out” (Jang, November 23). Pakistan intends to raise a squadron of JF-17s by 2010. The Chief of Air Staff of the PAF told a newspaper that JF-17s would help “replace the existing fleet of the PAF comprising F-7s, A-5s and all Mirage aircraft” (The News International, November 8). Eventually, Pakistan will have 350 JF-17s that will completely replace its ageing fleet.

Pakistan also plans to export these aircraft to developing countries for which, it says, orders have already started pouring in (Jang, November 22). China and Pakistan anticipate an annual export of 40 JF-17s to Asian, African and Middle Eastern nations [2]. At $25 million apiece, the export of 40 aircraft will fetch them $1 billion per year. There are estimates that Asia will purchase 1,000 to 1,500 aircraft over the next 15 years. In this Sino-Pakistani joint venture, Pakistan will have 58 percent of shares, while China will have 42 percent (The News International, November 25). Besides defense aviation, China and Pakistan are closely collaborating on the joint production of naval ships as well.

Chinese Frigates for the Pakistan Navy

China and Pakistan worked out a $750 million loan to help Pakistan build four F-22P frigates (The News International, September 16, 2004). In 2004, Pakistan negotiated this non-commercial (i.e. low-cost) loan with China for the joint manufacture of naval ships. China and Pakistan have since moved fast to begin work on this project. They have now expanded the original deal to build eight F22P frigates respectively at Hudong Zhonghua shipyard in Shanghai, China, and Karachi shipyard and Engineering Works (KSEW), Pakistan. The manufacturing cost of each F22P Frigate, which is an improved version of China’s original Type 053H3 Frigate, is $175 million. At this rate, the cost of eight frigates will run at about $1.4 billion.

The first Chinese-built F-22 frigate, named PNS Zulfiqar (Arabic for sword), was delivered to Pakistan on July 30 (The Nation, July 31). A month later, the ship was formally commissioned in the Pakistan Navy fleet in September. Soon after its arrival in July, the ship participated in the Pakistan Navy’s SeaSpark exercises. Of the original four frigates, three were to be built in China and one in Pakistan (Asia Times, July 11, 2007). After the delivery of PNS Zulfiqar, the remaining two ships that are being built in China are expected to be commissioned in the Pakistan Navy fleet by 2010. The fourth ship being built in Pakistan’s Karachi shipyard will be ready by 2013 (Asia Times, July 11, 2007).

The Pakistan Navy describes the F-22P frigate as a Sword Class ship that is equipped with long-range surface-to-surface missiles (SSM) and surface-to-air missiles (SAM), depth charges, torpedoes, the latest 76mm guns, a close-in-weapons system (CIWS), sensors, electronic warfare and an advanced command and control system (The Nation, July 31). The ship has a displacement of 3,000 tons and carries anti-submarine Z9EC helicopters. China has already delivered the first batch of two such helicopters to Pakistan. Although the Pakistan Navy has Sea-King helicopters for anti-submarine operations, it is now acquiring Chinese Z9ECs to enhance its operational capabilities (The Nation, July 31). In addition to building eight frigates, the Sino-Pakistan defense deal includes the upgrading of the Karachi dockyard for indigenous production of a modern surface fleet. The frigates deal is the first of its kind between China and Pakistan, which forges their two navies into a high-level collaboration for boosting their surface fleet.

Conclusion

At the turn of the millennium, China and Pakistan have diversified their defense trade into joint defense production. They have since been collaborating on the production of most advanced weapons systems, such as the JF-17s combat aircraft and F-22P Frigates. Pakistan will receive the transfer of technology for the J-10s as well. China recognizes that Pakistan is rich with human capital in the high-tech defense industry, which serves as a magnet for its investment. Both China and Pakistan look to capture wider defense export markets in Asia, Africa and the Middle East. At the same time, their growing cooperation in aviation and naval defense systems signals an important shift in Pakistan’s military doctrine that traditionally favored Army (especially ground forces) over its sister services—Navy and Air Force. In the region’s changing strategic environment, in which China has growing stakes, Pakistan has come to recognize the critical importance of air and naval defense. The China-Pakistan collaboration in aviation and naval defense amply embodies this recognition.

Notes

1. “NRO beneficiaries will be held to account.” Daily Intekhab, daily dailyintekhab.com.pk/news/news10.gif.
2. Tarique Niazi, “China-Pakistan Relations: Past, Present and Future,” A presentation made at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars on January 29, 2009.

Source: J-10: The New Cornerstone of Sino-Pakistani Defense Cooperation

‘Pakistan has developed pilotless drone technology’

2009-12-17T00:04:00.000-05:00

Friday, December 11, 2009
By By our correspondent

Karachi

Federal Minister for Defence Production Abdul Qayyum Khan Jatoi has said that Pakistan has developed the technology of pilotless drone aircraft on its own and now discussions are on with China to further improve this important defence capability.

The federal minister said this on Thursday while talking to newsmen after attending the keel-laying ceremony held here for indigenous building of the Chinese origin F-22 P Frigate for Pakistan Navy.

The ceremony marked achievement of another milestone towards the Pakistan Navy’s goal for greater self-reliance in enhancing its defence capabilities.

The keel-laying ceremony of the ship was held at the Karachi Shipyard & Engineering Works (KS&EW) where the Chief of Naval Staff, Admiral Noman Bashir, was also present, besides senior naval officers, representatives of the Ministry of Defence, and delegates from China.

Earlier, the federal minister expressed his pleasure at witnessing remarkable turnaround of the Karachi shipyard, especially promotion of its facilities for indigenous defence production.

Jatoi was also impressed by seeing all departments of the shipyard performing actively. He appreciated the quality of the work, skills, and hard work of workers of the Karachi Shipyard.

In his welcome address at the ceremony, Managing Director, KS&EW, Vice-Admiral Iftikhar Ahmed Rao underlined salient features of the F-22P frigate building project.

The first of the frigates, the PNS Zulfiqar, has recently been inducted in the Pakistan Navy Fleet whereas two ships are in different stages of construction in China and will be handed over to Pakistan in 2010. The fourth ship being built at the Karachi Shipyard is expected to be completed by 2013.

The F-22 P frigate is a Sword Class Ship equipped with long range surface-to-surface and surface-to-air missiles, depth charges, torpedoes, latest automatic 76mm guns, Close-in-Weapon System (CIWS), sensors, radars, Sonars, electronic warfare paraphernalia, and advanced command and control systems. The ship is 123 metres long and has a displacement of 3000 tons. It also carries anti-submarine Z9EC helicopters.

Source: http://www.thenews.com.pk/print1.asp?id=212723

Pakistan has the legitimate claim to Kashmir

2009-12-15T17:42:00.002-05:00

by Steven Meurrens

At the beginning of 2002, Pakistan and India appeared to be on the verge of a nuclear war. This was the latest stage in over fifty years of conflict between the two nations. The greatest issue in their relationship has been the disputed province of Kashmir. The hostilities began in October 1947, when the Hindu ruler of Kashmir signed a treaty giving his Muslim province to India, which is predominantly Hindu. Pakistan’s rejection of this agreement would lead to a war with India shortly thereafter. The province would be partitioned between India and Pakistan in 1949, and the established border remains today. Both nations still claim all of Kashmir. The situation has been complicated by the religious differences in the region between Muslims and Hindus. Further exemplifying the problem are the various versions of history that both sides present in their arguments for ownership of Kashmir. When the previous and current situations are analyzed, it is clear that it is Pakistan that has the legitimate claim to Kashmir, as India’s claim is based on fraud and violence.

Kashmir is located in the northern part of the Indian Subcontinent, occupying an area of 220,000 km². As per the United Nations cease-fire agreement that partitioned Kashmir on January 1, 1949, India occupies a majority of the disputed region. India has organized its territory as the state of Kashmir and Jammu. The capital is Srinagar. Pakistani controlled Kashmir is referred to as Azad (free) Kashmir. The capital is Muzaffarabad. Historically, the significant districts of Kashmir are the Poonch, Srinagar District, and Mirpur. The current population of the entire region is thirteen million, of which approximately sixty-four percent are Muslim. The demographics have barely changed since the dispute began in 1947. In 1941, of the four million people living in Kashmir, over 3,200,000 practiced Islam. Though a clear majority of the citizens were Muslim, the region was ruled by a Hindu prince.

The Maharaja Hari Singh presided over Kashmir during the end of British imperialism in South Asia. During the British partition of the Indian Subcontinent in 1947, the princely states were supposed to accede to either India or newly created Pakistan. Hari Singh wanted neither, and delayed his decision. Both Jawaharel Nehru, the leader of India, and Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, urged the maharaja to join their respective nation. In early September, a Muslim rebellion seeking unity with Pakistan erupted in the Poonch district. India accused Pakistan of sending Pashtun fighters into the Poonch to sabotage the pending decision of Hari Singh. By mid October, the rebel army was only four kilometres away from capturing Srinagar. It was at this point of desperation, that Hari Singh reportedly signed the Treaty of Accession with India. The Indian army would enter the province the same day, and would be at war with Pakistan within a month. The validity of this treaty would be the basis of both nations’ claim to Kashmir.

Historians often disagree with one and other about the interpretation of the dispute in Kashmir. There are three main concepts that are used by supporters of India to justify India’s occupation of Kashmir. The first is that because of the Treaty of Accession, India’s actions and claim to Kashmir are legal. A.G. Noorani, a lawyer in New Delhi, whose Indian bias has clouded his judgment about the Indian claim, and author of The Kashmir Question, summarized India’s long-standing stance regarding the treaty in his book’s introduction:

“Kashmir is legally [because of the Treaty] a part of India, Pakistan is therefore an aggressor and must be asked to vacate her aggression; having become a part of the country, Kashmir cannot claim self-determination; her accession is final and irrevocable as there is in law no such thing as a provisional accession.”

The appeals India has made to the United Nations all reflect this attitude. As Nehru argued in a complaint issued to the UN in 1948, because India has a document that states Kashmir belongs to India, all Pakistani claims and actions in the region are void and aggressive, as well as demonstrating a blatant disregard to international law and procedure.

In an effort to gain public support from the international community, India has rallied behind two popular slogans. These are: democracy and multi-culturalism. As an article in the January 19th, 2002, edition of the Economist indicated, these have had considerable success in brandishing Pakistan as an evil, rogue state. After all, India promotes itself as a secular democracy. India embraces its minorities. Pakistan, on the other hand, has always been an Islamic State, has been ruled by successive military governments, and tarnished by civil war. The Kashmiri people, India argues, would be better suited in a secular nation that embraces the rule of law. Legality. Democracy. Multi-culturalism. These are the three concepts that form the basis of the Indian claim to Kashmir. The relevance and truth of these ideas are questionable.

Historians supportive of the Pakistani claim believe that the Treaty of Accession is void because of the conditions and historical discrepancies pertaining to its signing. India acted aggressively and irresponsibly in forcing the agreement with a leader that did not represent the majority of his population. The Maharajah was a Hindu prince. During the time of accession, seventy-seven percent of the Kashmiri people were Muslim. Indian historians, on the other hand, have debated even the importance and truth of this fact. Prem Shankar Jha, editor of the Hindustan Times, and author of the book Kashmir: 1947, writes that the figure is exaggerated and misleading because the Muslims of Kashmir “belonged to at least three frequently antagonistic sects, two-thirds sharing a strongly synergetic tradition of Islam that had a good deal in common with the Bhaki tradition in Hinduism.” Mushtaqur Rahman, author of the brilliant analytical Divided Kashmir, counters the relevancy of this claim by stating that while the Muslims consisted of different sects, their beliefs separated from them other Muslims no less so than the differences between Kashmiri Hindus and Indian Hindus. Indeed, these Hindus possess their own dialect, dress, and food. In response to questions over why the demographics of Kashmir have changed (Kashmir is now estimated to be 64% Muslim.), he reminds readers that it is estimated that over 4 million Muslims have fled Indian occupied Kashmir since 1947. Despite the exodus, civilians in Indian controlled Kashmir still have great ethnic similarities to Pakistan, as noted by famed historian Richard Reeves, in Passage to Peshawar describing his experience in the region: “When I crossed from Azad Kashmir, in Pakistan, to Kashmir in India - across the disputed northeastern border established after the countries’ 1948 war - the people looked the same. They should have, because many of them were cousins of Pakistanis and practiced the same religion.” In the end these discrepancies and arguments pertaining to how Islam is divided into many types is merely nitpicking by supporters of India, highlighting facts that have no significance to the larger picture. In a census taken in 1941, of 4,021,698 people living in the entire region of Kashmir, 3,101,247 of them were Muslim. In the turbulent Kashmiri Valley (site of most of the recent violence in Kashmir) 94% ( 1,615, 478 to 1,728,705) of the citizens were Muslim. Under the provisions of the divisions of the Indian Subcontinent, regions that were mostly Muslim were designed to accede with Pakistan. Thus, in the natural course of history, if had India not acted irresponsibly, and the Kashmiris' had a leader that represented their interest, Kashmir would have gone to Pakistan.

The Maharajah Hari Singh never represented the will of his subjects, creating tension between the Hindu rulers and the Muslim population of Kashmir. Muslims in Kashmir detested him, as they were heavily taxed and had grown tired of his insensitivity to their religious concerns. The Dogra rule (the name of the municipal governments) had excluded Muslims from the civil service and the armed services. Islamic religious ceremonies were taxed. Historically, Muslims were banned from organizing politically, which would only be tolerated beginning in the 1930’s. In 1931, in response to a sermon that had tones of opposition to the government, the villages of Jandial, Makila, and Dana were ransacked and destroyed by the Dogra army, with their inhabitants burned alive. A legislative assembly, with no real power, was created in January, 1947. It issued one statement that represented the will of the Muslim people: “After carefully considering the position, the conference has arrived at the conclusion that accession of the State to Pakistan is absolutely necessary in view of the geographic, economic, linguistic, cultural and religious conditions…It is therefore necessary that the State should accede to Pakistan.

This is one of the rare instances that an elected block of the people of Kashmir had been given the chance to speak. Representing the subjects who elected them, they sought accession with Muslim Pakistan. Prem Nath Bazaz, founder of the Kashmir Socialist Party in 1943, a reliable primary source of history, reiterated that a majority of Kashmiris were against the decision of the Maharajah in his book, The History of The Struggle of Freedom In Kashmir. He writes, “The large majority of the population of the State, almost the entire Muslim community and an appreciable number of non Muslims was totally against the Maharjah declaring accession to India.” This statement, and the decision reached by the legislative assembly are important because they dispel any belief that the Kashmiris' religious ties with Pakistan did not necessarily indicate a will to unite. Indeed, the ethnic bond between Kashmir and Pakistan influenced a majority of the people to seek accession with Pakistan. The Hindu Maharajah would not listen, and continued to delay his decision about which nation to join. Still, even though Hari Singh’s actions were wrong, they do not compare to the deplorable pressure and tactics applied by India to capture Kashmir.

India relentlessly pressured Hari Singh to accede to India. While Pakistan agreed to sign a standstill agreement that would continue trade, travel, and transportation with Kashmir, India refused until the Maharajah did as they wished. India encouraged neighbouring provinces to pressure Kashmir to accede to India. Nehru said that if Kashmir joined Pakistan the chances of resuming any diplomatic or economic relationship with India would be remote. Pakistan took no such action. While the traditional view has been that Nehru sent his army into Kashmir only after the Treaty of Accession, there is growing evidence that this is not true. Alaistar Lamb, author of a series of books on Kashmir, has discovered evidence based on declassified military papers that India had Patalia gunners at the Sringar airport by October 17 1947, and has scoffed at the Indian apologists who propose that India’s invasion of Kashmir was the triumph of improvisation. Instead, he states that India had troops mobilized for an invasion of Kashmir by October 25th This would mean that India’s army was in Kashmir before the decision of the Mahrajah. With India’s army already in Kashmir it is obvious why the Maharajah would hand his country over to India. Because of the injustice displayed by India, the Treaty of Accession, if it was even signed, is nullified and void.

India claims to represent democracy in the dispute with Pakistan over Kashmir. If upholding democracy was indeed India’s motivation in their actions over Kashmir, one has to question why a plebiscite has never been issued. The Kashmiris have always demanded one, and India has always resisted. Even Nehru has conceded that Kashmiris do not want to remain under Indian occupation. When asked about never holding a plebiscite in Kashmir in 1965, Nehru responded, “Kashmir would vote to join Pakistan and we would lose it. No Indian government responsible for agreeing to a plebiscite would survive.” This logic is more fitting for describing an autocracy, not a nation claming to represent democracy. As for the issue of whether Pakistan is a theocratic state, it certainly cannot be, as its political power is not held by priests and religious heads claiming to represent a God. Islam may be the only official religion of Pakistan, but that does not warrant the title of a totalitarian theocracy. The historians supporting India have no grounds for saying that India has behaved better because it states itself to be the only democracy.

Apologists for Nehru and the successive governments of India have also made the peculiar claim that if Kashmir were to vote to succeed from India, it would lead to other revolts and demands for independence in other dissatisfied regions of India. Victoria Schofield, author of the comprehensive Kashmir in the Crossfire, has researched and analyzed the response of Kashmiris bewildered that a “secular democracy” would use this argument. Kashmiri independence groups have pointed out that it is the only region in India that has already been granted a plebiscite (that never materialised) in a United Nations Security Council Resolution that was actually approved by India. Even if politicians are worried about the possibility of India disintegrating because of losing Kashmir, this does not warrant the suppression of the Muslims in Kashmir, and the Kashmiris are indeed oppressed. Amnesty International has repeatedly decried atrocities committed against separatists in Kashmir, and they estimate that 34,000 civilians have been killed.

India basing its claim on adhering to diplomatic rule of law and the decision of a nation’s leader is made even more laughable because of its actions in Hyderabad and Junadgh. Hyderabad, located in central India, was the opposite of Kashmir. There, a Muslim ruled over a Hindu majority, and did not want to join India. The Indians did not accept the leader’s wishes and invaded Hyderabad in September of 1948. In Junadgh, the situation was similar. Nehru forced the ruler of Junadgh to hold a plebiscite after the latter claimed that he could not make the decision because he did not represent his people. That Nehru agreed to the principles of self-determination and ethnicity when it served his interests, and not in Kashmir, illustrates the hypocrisy of the Indian claim to Kashmir. As Mushtaqur Rahman reiterates in his book, it even renders the Indian claim illogical:

“Their arguments were that it made no sense geographically, that a ruler had acceded to a region of different religion then his people. Logically then, India should have supported the Muslims majority of Jammu and Kashmir and let them join Pakistan.”
Mr. Bazaz was also mystified by the hypocrisy in India’s actions, as he writes:

“Obviously in accordance with the basic principle governing the partition the consideration of the religion professed by people in different parts… the Jammu and Kashmir State, whose population is preponderating (77 percent) Muslim - almost the same as is the ratio of Hindus in Junagad and Hyderabad to the total populations of these States - should legitimately and unconditionally belong to Pakistan and must in fairness go to it.”342

What the hypocrisy and determination of India to take Kashmir at the expense of logic and the will of Kashmiris does illustrate is the underlying motivation of India to serve Nehru’s interests. Nehru’s family heritage originates in Kashmir. This appears to be one of the only two possible reasons India has so forcefully demanded it be given Kashmir. The second cause is that of deep resentment over the creation of Pakistan.

If one were to base India’s claim on Kashmir on actual principals that are present in its actions, they would be: pride, resentment, and aggression. The government of India’s desperate attempt to validate its hold on Kashmir is merely just India rejecting the concept of Pakistan in general. Nehru and the government of India’s rejection of Pakistan is well known. Liaquat Ali Khan, the vice-president of Pakistan during accession, reiterated this in a telegram to Nehru when he wrote, “India never wholeheartedly accepted the partition scheme but her leaders paid lip service to it merely in order to get the British troops out of the country. India is out to destroy the state of Pakistan . Indeed, this attitude would explain why India visibly rejected the mandate of the creation of Pakistan, as well as the common sense of ethnicity in Kashmir. The Indian resentment of the creation of Pakistan is not just a rumour started by Karachi. Even A.G. Noorami, sympathetic to the Indian claim to Kashmir, writes, “We are a secular State and we do not believe in the “two-nation” theory. But is it necessary for that purpose to retain Kashmir in India against the will of her people?” Perhaps most telling of this pride and hatred towards Pakistan is the response given by a representative of the Indian government to peace talks offered by Pakistani President Jinnah, which was, “for the prime minister to come crawling to Jinnah, when India was stronger would be a step which the Indian people would never forgive.” With such sentiment, it is little wonder that peace in Kashmir has been hard to achieve.

India continues to use its military superiority over Pakistan to resist negotiating any terms of peace with Kashmir. Unfortunately, as noted by Time correspondent Edward Desmond, the international community shows no signs of challenging India’s claims. “No country was willing to risk its entire agenda with New Delhi over the Kashmiri cause, especially when it was clear that New Delhi had no intentions of backing down.

Due to the contradictions and falsifications that India has used to present its argument towards ownership of Kashmir, and its inaction towards holding a plebiscite in Kashmir, it cannot reasonably be argued that India has the more legitimate claim to Kashmir. In reality, India has kept its army in Kashmir to maintain hostile relations with Pakistan because of the formers rejection of the “two-nation” theory that created Pakistan. India cannot claim to represent the interests of the Kashmiri people and their democratic rights because it refuses to let them decide their future. Its relentless pressure on the Maharajah, as well as Hari Singh’s inability to properly lead, nullifies the relevance and significance of the Treaty of Accession. That the Indian army landed in Kashmir even before Hari Singh had conceded his nation to India proves it never intended to respect his decision anyways. India has ignored the rules set out in the partition of the sub-continent, dividing the region by ethnicity. Instead, the leaders of India have sought only to use Kashmir to illustrate their superiority in the subcontinent. As long as India continues to act on flawed and aggressive notions, the Kashmir conflict will not be resolved.

Bibliography

1. Alastair, Lamb. Kashmir : A Disputed Legacy. Hertingfordbury: Roxford Books, 1991.

2. Bazaz, Prem Nath. The History of the Struggle for Freedom in Kashmir. New Delhi. Kashmir Publishing Company. 1954.

3. Noorani, Abdul Gafoor Abdul Majeed. The Kashmir Question. Bombay: Manaktalas, 1964.

4. Rahman, Mushtaqur. Divided Kashmir : Old Problems, New Opportunities for India, Pakistan, and the Kashmiri People. Boldour, Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1996.

5. Reeves, Richard. Passage to Peshawar : Pakistan: Between the Hindu Kush and the Arabian Sea. New York : Simon and Schuster, 1984.

6. Jha, Prem Shankar. Kashmir 1947 : Rival Versions of History. Bombay: Oxford University Press, 1996.

7. Schofield, Victoria. Kashmir in the Crossfire. New York: I.B. Taurus, 1996

8. “The Standoff at the Roof of the World.” The Economist. 19 January, 2002.

Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/6497429/Pakistan-Has-the-Legitimate-Claim-to-Kashmir

This is by far one of the greatest, most eloquent, most well-researched, and well-documented articles I have ever read about Kashmir.

Welcome to the launch of Pakistan Defence Journal!

2009-12-14T22:17:00.000-05:00

Dear viewers,

Welcome to the official launch of Pakistan Defence Journal. The goal of Pakistan Defence Journal is to provide you the best and latest information on Pakistan's political, social, economic, historical, military, and strategic affairs. Pakistan Defence Journal will bring you the latest videos, news feeds, photos, and information.

We here at Pakistan Defence Journal are patriots and nationalist of Pakistan and we strive to bring you the best of Pakistan!

Pakistan Zindabad!

Sincere Regards, A1Kaid