Pakistan captures Red Fort of Delhi (Artwork)

Made by me.

Wanted For Treason Poster

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

Supreme Court cracks down on corrupt Politicians

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

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

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’

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

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!

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