India Determined to Break Pakistan into Pieces; The RAW Agent Reveals the Truth

By Ishaal Zehra

I was basically the man for Mr Anil Kumar Gupta who is the joint secretary RAW and his contacts in Pakistan especially in the Baloch Student Organization, said Kulbhushan Yadav in his voluntarily confession. Yadav is the Indian spy held by the Pakistani authorities on 3^rd March 2016 while infiltrating into Pakistan via Saravan border area of Balochistan with Iran.

“My purpose was to hold meetings with Baloch insurgents and carry out activities with their collaboration. These activities have been of criminal nature. This have been of anti-national, terrorist leading into the killing of or maiming the Pakistani citizen also. I realise during this process that RAW is involved in some activities related to the Baloch liberation movement within Pakistan and the region around it.” “There are finances which are led into Baloch movement through various contacts or various ways and means into the Baloch liberation and the various activities of these Baloch liberation and the RAW handlers go towards activities which are criminal, which are anti-national which can lead to maiming or killing of people within Pakistan and mostly these activities were centred around what I have knowledge is of ports of Gawadar, Pasni, Jeevani and various other installations which are around the coast damaging to the various other installations which are in Balochistan. So the activity seemed to be revolving around trying to create a criminal sort of a mindset within the Baloch liberation and lead to instability within Pakistan.” he confessed.

Interestingly, and as expected in such cases, the Indian government criticised the video confessions of Yadav shown by Pakistan, claiming the man has been tutored and that he might have been abducted from Iran.

Previously, an Indian statement, issued immediately after Pakistan announced Yadav’s arrest from Balochistan, had confirmed that arrested person was an Indian national and former Indian Navy official. But, contrary to Pakistan’s claim, Indian Ministry of External Affairs insisted that Kulbushan Yadav was not an official of Research and Analysis Wing (RAW).  

The Ministry of External Affairs of India said in a statement that their government categorically rejects allegations that this individual was involved in subversive activities in Pakistan at their behest. Their enquiries reveal that he apparently was being harassed while operating a legitimate business from Iran, and while they probe this aspect further, his presence in Pakistan raises questions, including the possibility of his abduction from Iran. The statement further said “That the individual claims to make the statements of his own free will not only challenges credulity but clearly indicates tutoring.”

Contrary to the statement of Indian Ministry of External Affairs, Hussain Zaidi, a prominent Indian journalist has confirmed the details of Pakistani version of Kulbushan Yadav’s story proving him an Indian spy.

Hussain Zaidi, is an investigative journalist working with top Indian newspapers and author of six books including one based on Mumbai mafias. He claimed that Kulbushan Yadav was issued a bogus Indian passport with cover name Husain Mubarak Patel. The passport was said to have been issued from Thane Regional Passport Office (RPO) but his report quotes Thane police commissioner Param Bir Singh saying as “We have tried to establish the authenticity of passport but found no record about it and that no police report was ever filed about this passport.” The commissioner is pretty much sure that Kulbushan Yadav was not only using a fake name to portray himself as an Indian Muslim businessman but the passport carried by him was also not obtained through formal way.

“Kulbushan Yadav’s main goal was to disrupt implementation of the historic China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) project, with Gwadar port as an extensive target of activities,” Lt-General Asim Saleem Bajwa said while adding that “this is nothing short of state-sponsored terrorism… There can be no clearer evidence of Indian interference in Pakistan.”

In a separate development, Balochistan Chief Minister Sanaullah Zehri has claimed to have arrested at least 15 more agent of RAW from his province, in raids based on the leads provided by Kulbhashan Yadav.

Pakistan has always been pointing out Indian hand in areas bordering Afghanistan and Iran and also raised objections on the presence of Indian consulates near the Pak-Afghan border which are constantly being used by India to export turbulence in Pakistan through the porous Pak-Afghan border. But the Western media habitually insisted on the bizarre assumptions that Pakistan has secret ties with jihadis to launch attacks on India. Unfortunately, it has less often revealed that it is India actually who is persistently involved in a proxy war against Pakistan.

There are a number of occasions when US officials themselves claimed that India is constantly hindering peace to prevail in Pakistan. For instance, the former US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel who, during an address on Afghanistan at Oklahoma’s Cameron University in 2011, had clearly said, "India for some time has always used Afghanistan as a second front, and India has over the years financed problems for Pakistan on that side of the border. And you can carry that into many dimensions...”

If someone is still clueless on to what Indian strategy could be regarding Pakistan, let's talk about the viral video of Ajit Doval delivered before he was appointed as National Security Advisor (NSA) by Indian Prime Minister Modi. Doval while addressing to the crowd of SASTRA University in 2013 said, "How do we tackle Pakistan? .. You make it difficult for them (Pakistan) to manage their internal security... Pakistan's vulnerability is many many times higher than India's... Taliban have beheaded 23 of their (Pakistani) soldiers... funding can be countered by giving more funds... more than one-and-a-half times the funding they have available and they'll be yours.. the Taliban are mercenaries... go for more of a covert thing."

The speech didn’t surprised me as it portrayed his personal thoughts, what surprised me actually was that Doval was appointed as Indian National Security Advisor after promoting such thoughts for his neighbours.

This time, for once, Pakistan was fortunate enough to bust the Indian sponsored terror ring well-timed. But what about other channels of terror financing India is using against us. We as a nation are conspired against by our neighbor and are locked in a clueless combat against our own people. Merely asserting that India is using underhand tactics to destabilize the country is not enough. India besides using direct agents for the task, is also painting a negative picture of Pakistan around the globe portraying her as the most violent and a failed state which is quite contrary to what Pakistan actually is. Now the question remains what better we can do with ourselves knowing who are real enemy is. And will the world support us in this open and proved case of severe conspiracy while we level the case with India.

Kalat Accession: Allegory and Actuality – 2

By:  Aasef Chauhdry

By February 1948, the discussions between Kalat and the Government of Pakistan were coming to a head. The Quaid wrote to the Khan of Kalat: I advise you to join Pakistan without further delay and let me have your final reply which you promised to do after your stay with me in Karachi when we fully discussed the whole question in all its aspects. On February 15, 1948, the Quaid-i-Azam visited Sibi, Baluchistan and addressed a Royal Durbar, where he announced that until the Pakistan Constitution is finally written in about two years time, he would govern the province with the help of an advisory council that he would nominate. However, the main reason for the Quaid’s visit to Baluchistan was to persuade the Khan of Kalat to accede to Pakistan. As it transpired, the Khan failed to turn up for the final meeting with him, pleading illness. In his letter to the Quaid, he said that he had summoned both Houses of the Parliament, Dar-ul-Umara and Dar-ul-Awam, for their opinion about the future relations with the Dominion of Pakistan, and he would inform him about their opinion by the end of the month.

While the Dar-ul-Awam, met on February 21, 1948, decided not to accede, the Dar-ul-Umara asked the Khan to seek three months to consider this request. An intelligence report on the proceedings of the meetings reported that copies of the Instrument of Accession were distributed at the Dar-ul-Awam and Dar-ul-Umara before the members cast their votes, and that the Kalat State National Party was propagating that accession meant restriction on their forces and armament, undesired freedom for their women and migration of Muslim refugees into the State which will weaken the voice of the original residents. The Khan of Kalat, the report said, made a brief speech before the Dar-ul-Awam, in which he emphasized the need to have friendly relations with Pakistan, and also said that the intentions of the Quaid towards Kalat were good. The Prime Minister of Kalat spoke next, and said that since this House had voted for Kalat’s independence, he went to see the Quaid in January and had a two-and-a-half hour meeting. He said the Quaid was prepared to help the State in every way, and while independence of the State would remain intact, the only way forward for Kalat was to accede to Pakistan in the matters of Defence, Communications and Foreign Affairs.41 The Prime Minister argued that with accession in respect of the three subjects, the internal independence of Kalat would not be affected. But Mir Ghauos Bakhsh Bizenjo spoke against accession to Pakistan, and he argued that if Pakistan wanted friendship with Kalat, it should restore its leased territories as well as Kharan and Las Bela. Meanwhile, prior to the meeting of the Dar-ul-Awam, on February 25, Agha Abdul Karim, the brother of the Khan of Kalat, met the members of the Kalat State National Party at Dhadar to discuss the issue of the accession of Kalat to Pakistan, and it was here that a resolution was drafted rejecting the accession.

On March 9, 1948 the Khan received communication from the Quaid announcing that he had decided not to deal personally with the Kalat state negotiations, which would henceforth be dealt with by the Pakistan Government. So far there had not been any formal negotiations but only an informal request made by the Quaid to the Khan at Sibi. This request was placed before the Council of Sardars of the state, which asked for three months to consider the matter. The Khan was, however, under pressure from the Afghan government, which would have liked to negotiate an agreement on their own terms. On March 17, 1948 the Pakistan Foreign Ministry sent a telegram to London announcing that Kharan, Las Bela and Mekran had applied for accession to Pakistan and their accession had been accepted. The Khan of Kalat objected to their accession, arguing that it was a violation of Kalat’s Standstill Agreement with Pakistan. He also said that while Kharan and Las Bela were its feudatories, Mekran was a district of Kalat. The British Government had placed the control of the foreign policy of the two feudatories under Kalat in July 1947, prior to partition.

The ruler of Las Bela too had been lobbying with the Quaid-i-Azam to let his state accede to Pakistan. On September 5, 1947, Mir Ghulam Qadir wrote to the Quaid, saying that he had already written to the Pakistani Prime Minister offering accession of Las Bela to the Pakistan Dominion. The letter also mentioned the dire economic conditions of the people of Las Bela as its supplies seem to have been cut off by Kalat. On March 17, 1948, Las Bela too acceded to Pakistan along with Mekran and Kharan. However, by this time the Kalat Government had heard a Radio Pakistan announcement that the Government of Pakistan had accepted the separate accession of Las Bela, Kharan, and Mekran, and wanted this report denied. However, on March 18, 1948, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Pakistan issued a press note that the States of Kharan, Las Bela and Mekran had applied for accession to Pakistan, which was granted to them. The offer of accession was accepted by the Pakistan Cabinet when Jam of Las Bela, Chief of Kharan and Nawab Bai Khan of Mekran met the Quaid on March 17, 1948 and told him that if Pakistan was not prepared to accept their offers of accession immediately, they would be compelled to take other steps for their protection against Khan of Kalat’s aggressive actions. This was seen as a blow to the Khan as head of the alliance.

What finally forced the Khan of Kalat to accede was the furor caused by news on the All India Radio that the Khan had been negotiating with India. As a consequence of these developments, a report on March 20, claimed that the brother of the Khan, who was also the Governor of Kalat, was leaving for Afghanistan with his wife, who was from the Royal Afghan family.56 However, on March 28, the Reuters news agency carried a story filed from Karachi that Gateway State Joins Pakistan. The Khan issued a communiqué, which said, “On the night of March 27, All India Radio, Delhi announced that two months ago Kalat State had approached the Indian Union to accept its accession to India and that the Indian Union had rejected the request. It had never been my intention to accede to India. It is, therefore, declared that from 9 pm on March 27^th, the time when I heard the false news over the air, I forthwith decide to accede to Pakistan, and that whatever differences now exist between Kalat and Pakistan be placed in writing before Mr. Jinnah, the Governor-General of Pakistan, whose decision I shall accept”. The UK High Commissioner, commenting on the Khan’s denials, wrote, “Khan’s public denials of rumours about offers made to him by India and Afghanistan conflict with his own statements in earlier discussion with Pakistan representatives, when he used these offers as a blackmailing argument. There is good reason to believe that he has been flirting with both India and Afghanistan”.

While the Instrument of Accession was signed by the Khan of Kalat on March 27, it was placed before Muhammad Al Jinnah on March 31, 1948, who accepted it. There was no kind of resistance to the accession till the middle of July 1948, when the brother of the Khan returned from Afghanistan, where he had fled with a body of armed followers. The Pakistan Army engaged this band and the majority of his followers arrested.

As this account makes amply clear, the story of the accession of Kalat was a long drawn out process. And although Pakistan came into being on August 14, 1947, the accession of Kalat did not take place till March 27, 1948. The three feudatories, two of which Las Bela and Kharan, which were recognized by the British as independent, played a key role in forcing the Khan of Kalat to accede to Pakistan. The issue of the accession of Kalat has been clouded in argument and folklore, because little or no research has been done on the subject. One scholar has described the annexation as, a nine month tug of war that came to a climax in the forcible annexation of Kalat. The reality is quite different. Khan of Kalat had no choice but to accede after Kharan, Las Bela and Mekran’s acceded to Pakistan, cutting off Kalat from the sea. The announcement on All India Radio that Kalat had been negotiating with India, which Nehru was at pains to deny in the Indian Parliament, caused such an outcry within Baluchistan and outside that the Khan acceded immediately to Pakistan. That was the time from where this controversy abetted by Bizenjo started. And since last few recent years BSN has started observing 27 March every year as black day on alleged annexation of Kalat state with Pakistan in 1948.  Why these announcements of shutter down strikes in small and far-flung areas of Balochistan, demonstrations of small attendance by exiled BSNs and activities by a handful miscreants on social media are made, is no more a secret after the arrest and confession of RAW’s agent Kulbhushun Yadav.

Kalat Accession: Allegory and Actuality – 1

By Aasef Chauhdry

There was a kind of tug of war between Kalat and Pakistan in the early days, however, making the accession controversial, doing propaganda and celebrating so-called Black Day every year on its basis is not acceptable. Many journalists would unashamedly lie that Kalat joined Pakistan by vigor but they can’t give any historic proof to this claim. If taking over of Kalat state was a myth, why would people like Mir Ghauos Bakhsh Bizenjo, President of the Kalat State National Party, who were against Kalat state acceding to Pakistan later on became the Governor of the Balochistan province? Another most vital truth is that why Kalat is termed as whole Balochistan province? Why people forget the reality that by the time of Accession of Kalat, most of Balochistan was already part of Pakistan but propagandists and planted agents would only talk about Kalat as if it was entire Balochistan. What is now called Balochistan had many Pashtun dominated districts which along with Quetta and other districts readily became part of Pakistan by August 1947 excluding Gwadar which belonged to Oman at that time and was later sold to Pakistan. Just to clear these misconceptions it was felt mandatory to take the help of authentic and well researched material to clear the doubts lurking in general public’s minds.

Baluchistan that Pakistan inherited consisted of three types of territory. First, there was a long strip of land separating Baluchistan from Afghanistan and the Northwest Frontier Province, which was directly administered by the British. Chiefs, who had treaty relationships with the British, controlled the rest of Baluchistan. They had internal independence but the Government of India controlled their external relations. The Khan of Kalat was the most important of these chiefs, whose territories were divided amongst a number of feudatories with different levels of independence. Kalat did not feature large in the competition between India and Pakistan for the accession of princely states at the time of the partition. Since it was on the periphery of the Indian sub-continent, it did not hold the same importance as Kashmir, Hyderabad, or even Junagadh. Nor did it have the disagreement of the ruler belonging to one faith while its people belonged to another, as both were Muslim. However, the Quaid-i-Azam had promised Kalat and other princely states independence, if they acceded to Pakistan. Independence in this environment meant that foreign affairs, defence and communications would be handled by Pakistan.

As the Viceroy, Lord Mountbatten, sought to settle the question of accession of all princely states, Kalat was the subject of a meeting on July 19, 1947. While discussing the future of Kalat, Lord Mountbatten said that he would meet the representatives of the other princely states and suggest to them that they should adhere to one or the other of the Dominions. The minutes of the same meeting revealed that the Khan of Kalat claimed that Jinnah had asked him whether he would be willing to send representatives to the Pakistan Constituent Assembly, but he had responded in the negative, saying it would not be possible because of Kalat’s independent status. However, more importantly, the Khan had agreed with Jinnah that an understanding must be reached between Kalat and Pakistan on defence, external affairs and communications. A series of meetings between the Viceroy, as the Crown’s Representative, the Quaid and the Khan of Kalat followed, which resulted in a communiqué on August 11, 1947. The communiqué stated that, “The Government of Pakistan recognizes Kalat as an independent sovereign state in treaty relations with the British Government with a status different from that of Indian States. Legal opinion will be sought as to whether or not agreements of leases will be inherited by the Pakistan Government. Meanwhile, a Standstill Agreement has been made between Pakistan and Kalat. Discussions will take place between Pakistan and Kalat at Karachi at an early date with a view to reaching decisions on Defence, External Affairs and Communications”.

While the Quaid on behalf of the Government of Pakistan agreed to recognize Kalat as an independent and a sovereign State, the Khan of Kalat tried to get the Crown Representative to do so as well. The Crown Agent refused on the basis of an advice from his political adviser. It is clear from the draft communiqué and the UK High Commissioner’s letter discussing it that not only was the British Government unhappy with Pakistan’s recognition of Kalat as an independent and a sovereign State, but it also did not want it to become a precedent.

Grafftey Smith mentions in his memo of September 24, 1947 to the Commonwealth Relations Office that a draft Instrument of Accession has been sent to the Khan of Kalat, and it is in the same form as the Junagadh Instrument, but that the Khan is unlikely to accept it. He further said that Jinnah has had second thoughts regarding the recognition of Kalat as an independent sovereign state, and is now desirous of obtaining its accession in the same form as was accepted by other rulers who joined Pakistan. The same note mentions that an interesting situation is developing as Pakistan might accept the accession of Kalat’s two feudatories, Las Bela and Kharan, and points out that this is like Junagadh, where India is negotiating directly with Mangrol. However, it says, the significant difference between the two situations is that the Crown Representative recognised Kharan and Las Bela as independent states prior to August 15, 1947, which was not the case with Mangrol. The note also mentions that the Khan has assured Jinnah of having no intention of opening negotiations with Iran, Afghanistan or India, but observed that the situation would become very difficult if the Khan attempted to open negotiations with New Delhi.

On August 15, 1947 when the British withdrew from India, the Khan of Kalat said in his speech, “I thank God that one aspiration, that is independence, has been achieved, but the other two, the enforcement of Shariah-i-Muhammadi and unification of Baloch people, remain to be fulfilled”. The speech was delivered in the Balochi language, with promises to work towards the unfulfilled aspirations. He also expressed the sense of incompleteness of the process of unification and independence, and appeared to be referring to the leased areas, which Pakistan had inherited from British India.

What complicated the situation was the desire of Kharan and Las Bela, two feudatories of Kalat, to accede to Pakistan, irrespective of Kalat’s decision. Moreover, Mekran, which was a district of Kalat, wanted to do the same. There are a plethora of letters from the rulers of Kharan and Las Bela entreating the Quaid to accept the accession of their states to Pakistan, irrespective of Kalat’s decision. Mir Mohammed Habibullah Khan, the ruler of Kharan, wrote to the Quaid on August 21, 1947, “I announce on behalf of myself and my subjects; and joins Pakistan Dominion as its suzerain and promises to serve Pakistan up to its extent”. In each successive letter, Habibullah Khan makes it apparent that the supremacy of Kalat is unacceptable to him. He wrote to the Quaid in November 1947, by then the Governor-General of Pakistan, “My State will never submit to the dictates of the Kalat State and will continue to oppose any moves aimed at an interference of the State’s freedom to act. A few days later writing again to the Governor-General, he argued that it is not possible any longer for Kharan to bear the undue interference from the Kalat state, and described the legal status of Kharan in these words, “Following the lapse of the British paramountcy, Kharan repudiated the supremacy of Kalat and acceded to Pakistan; Kharan also complained that Kalat was arming the mischief mongers in Kharan with the purpose of creating law and order situation in Pakistan-controlled areas.

By October 1947, Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah had a change of heart on the recognition of Kalat as an Independent and a Sovereign State, and wanted the Khan to sign the same form of instrument of accession as the other states which had joined Pakistan. The Khan was unwilling to abandon the nominally achieved independent status but ready to concede on defence, foreign affairs and communications. However, he was unwilling to sign either a treaty or an Instrument, until and unless he had got a satisfactory agreement on the leased areas. Fears were also being voiced that officials of the Government of Pakistan might start dealing with the two feudatories of Las Bela and Kharan, and accept their de facto accession, as these two feudatories were recognized by the Crown Representative as separate States prior to August 15, 1947.

Mir Mohammad Habibullah Khan, the ruler of Kharan, wrote to the Quaid-i-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah in December 1947 and explained why Kharan did not accept the suzerainty of Kalat. He said that before the advent of the British, Kharan was under the influence of Afghanistan, and that it was in 1883 that it accepted the supremacy of Britain. Kharan, he said, received an allowance of Rs. 6,000 per year from the British until August 15, 1947 in lieu of the allowance it used to get from Afghanistan. He argued that Kharan was an independent state under the supremacy of the British. Kalat, he said, has always wanted to subjugate Kharan, and even launched an armed attack against Kharan in 1939 to force it to accept Kalat’s hegemony. Habibullah Khan then declared, “After August 15, 1947, Kharan is absolutely an independent State. It has decided to accede to Pakistan. However, whether Kharan joins Pakistan or remains outside, this much is clear that it will never, in any way, accept Kalat’s hegemony. His position about the Brohi Confederacy was that Sardar Azad Khan, the ruler of Kharan, had not recognized the Khan of Kalat as his Sardar during Sir Robert Sandeman’s tenure of office. The ruler of Kharan in Baluchistan, while visiting Karachi in October 1947, issued a statement, saying, “Kharan was equal to Kalat and would never suffer subordination to her; Kharan would live and, if necessary, die for Pakistan. Kalat continued to deny that either of the two feudatories could be regarded as separate states.

(To be concluded)

Pathankot Attack and Indian Rhetoric against Pakistan

By Tariq Rizwan

A group of unidentified armed men attacked an Indian Air Base at Pathankot on 2 January 2016. The attack had great similarity with the attacks taken place against air bases in Pakistan in the past. The so called non-state-actors only believe in regional instability and have never spared any one. Pathankot is part of the Western Air Command of the Indian Air Force. Four attackers and three security forces personnel were killed in the initial battle, with an additional security force member dying from injuries later. On 3 January, fresh gunshots were heard, and another security officer was killed by an IED explosion. The operation continued on 4 January, and a fifth attacker was confirmed killed.  The attackers were wearing Indian Army fatigues and were suspected to be affiliated with Jaish-e-Mohammed, an Islamist militant group. The group has been declared as a terrorist organization by India, the US, the UK and the UN. The attack was described as a terrorist incident in the Indian and foreign media. The United Jihad Council, a Kashmiri Freedom Fighters’ group claimed responsibility for the attack on 4 January Media reports suggested that the attack was an attempt to derail a fragile peace process between India and Pakistan, as several pieces of evidence were found linking the attackers to Pakistan. Reports claimed that the people who carried out the attack in Pathankot were in regular touch with their handlers. It has been alleged that the two phone numbers to which calls were made by the attackers were from Pakistan. According to the report, the first number probably belonged to the mother of one of the militants made in order to intimate her of not coming back home and taking care of herself, while the second one belonged to one of the handlers of the attackers. Indian Intelligence Bureau officials have stated that the attackers called their handler "ustaad" while describing their positions inside Punjab after crossing over from Pakistan. Maulana Masood Azhar, chief of Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM), and his brother Abdul Rauf Asghar are among four persons identified by Indian intelligence agencies as "handlers" behind the attack. They alleged that the conspiracy was hatched from vicinities of Lahore. As usual, Indian defense Minister Manohar Parrikar has pointed out that some of the materials used by the terrorists were made in Pakistan.

Pakistan has assured India of all possible help in the case but requested India to allow its investigation team to collect sufficient evidences to present it in the local court. After lot of efforts, Pakistan’s Joint Investigation Team (JIT) has got Indian visas and has prepared a 50-point questionnaire for investigating the Pathankot incident. The team which will leave for India on Sunday, will stay there for a week for complete probe there. Modalities of JIT have been agreed between the Indo-Pak authorities," said a senior member of the JIT. The Pakistani authorities conveyed to India that the JIT is of the opinion that it requires a minimum seven-day stay there to carry forward the investigation. The JIT's senior official said that concerned authorities of both countries had agreed on the mandate and working of the JIT and hoped that the issue of stay would also be solved amicably. The top officer of the JIT said that the JIT would enjoy the same power, mandate and authority in India as in Pakistan. The JIT would work under its own CRPC in India and would visit the crime scene and collect evidences.

The JIT Team will meet witnesses to record their statements and would also call on Indian investigation officers who already carried out the investigation for sharing information. The JIT will examine the arms used by the terrorists. It would also record statements of the victims of the terrorist attack and would prepare a memo of the tragedy. India agreed with all the modalities and gave a green signal to Pak authorities. Officers from various security agencies would be part of the team.

Pakistan has remained the most affected country in the ongoing war on terror. Deployment of thousands of troops on its Western Border, losing thousands of people in the war as well as suffering economical losses worth more than Rs 70 billion shows Pakistan’s sincerity and whole heartedness in the struggle to see terror free world. Our leadership humble approach is being taken for granted. Indian interference from Afghanistan to destabilize Pakistan’s western belt coupled by a series of premature statements after attacks in India by the non-state actors followed by Indian media’s irresponsible tirade against Pakistan has raised a big question mark on the sincerity on India in the war on terror.

It is India who has exposed Pakistan’s weak security in Balochistan and KPK by carrying terror attacks. The arrest of Indian serving Navy officer Kul Yadav Bhoshan from bordering areas of Balochistan is a strong evidence of Indian interference in Balochistan. So there is no use of bilateral talks unless both sides are sincere to settle all the controversial issues including the core issue of Jammu and Kashmir. The politics of allegations for the sake of maligning and defaming one another must end now. Indians are not bad and people from both sides want peace and prosperity but the Modi led government must come out of the clutches of Hindu extremist groups; Shiv Sina and others. The pace of talks and speedy resolve has been sluggish and needs to develop an environment of trust by both sides.

Pakistan’s Army and its prime institution ISI have specially been targeted to undermine its strong pillars. India was actually just left behind as no man area and backlog has yet not been cleared. It is still ruled by the extremist Hindus. Moderates have no say in the affairs. The day to day killing of innocent people by Hindu “Banyas “have exposed the India’s face of secularism and big democracy. India has no democracy rather a “Government of the mob, by the mob and for the mob” of extremist Hindus. Pakistan was created for and ideology that we are Muslims and we have to live according to our Islamic teachings. Islam does not believe in ethnic and sectarian divide. However India and its intelligence agency “RAW” have remained engaged to revive such weak areas and exploit them for destabilizing Pakistan specially our Western Belt.  

Unlike India, why Pakistan is close to China; due to China’s sincerity, friendly attitude and her belief in non interference as well peace and prosperity in the region. Despite having large population, India is playing in the hands of extra regional power US/West to counter China’s rising power and strength in the region. It is all at the cost of regional peace and stability. Europe has witnessed all levels of development by leaving behind all past rivalries and wars for the sake of peace and prosperity in their continents. Only we are leaving in Stone Age by pressing one another’s tales. It is reap time to forget about the past and resolve all outstanding issues and move forward to compete in development. The region may usher in new era of peace and prosperity.  

The writer is a freelance journalist based in London

Pakistan & Nuclear Security Summit 2016

                                      

By Sajjad Shaukat

From 31 March to 1 April, 2016, heads of more than 50 countries and the leaders of four international organizations will negotiate and finalize new commitments to improve nuclear security protocols around the world at the fourth Nuclear Security Summit (NSS) in Washington, D.C. Two years ago, in Berlin, the US President Barrack Obama had formally announced his plan to host a fourth and final Nuclear Security Summit in 2016. 

The NSS process has been President Obama’s flagship initiative since his first term when he underlined security of nuclear materials as a priority of his administration in Prague speech of April 5, 2009. He initiated an international effort to secure all vulnerable nuclear material around the globe within four years. This ambitious goal was not fully achieved by March 2014; however, the process has observed few successes. Since Prague speech, three nuclear security summits have taken place so far—Washington in 2010, Seoul 2012 and Hague in 2014. So, this will be concluding summit, as President Obama completes his final term this year. The NSS process has survived two presidential terms and will become part of President Obama’s legacy.

The United States seeks a strengthened global nuclear security architecture which is comprehensive, is based on international standards, builds confidence in nations’ nuclear security implementation, and results in declining global stocks of nuclear weapons-usable materials. We cannot afford to wait for an act of nuclear terrorism before working together to collectively raise our standards for nuclear security.

However, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif will represent Pakistan at the forthcoming nuclear security summit. The conference will discuss the future of nuclear security summit process and will determine pathways to secure and build on the achievements of the whole process. In this regard, Pakistan’s Ambassador to the United States Jalil Abbas Jilani has said such high-level participation by Pakistan reflects its strong commitment to nuclear security. He elaborated that The US has been very appreciative of Pakistan’s participation in these meetings. It has periodically recognised Pakistan’s active engagements with global community on the issue of nuclear security.

Meanwhile, in a policy statement on Pakistan’s nuclear programme, the US State Department admitted that Islamabad is well aware of its responsibilities with respect to nuclear security and has secured its nuclear arsenal accordingly.

Nevertheless, the forthcoming summit meeting will discuss future of nuclear security summit process and will determine pathways to secure and build on achievements of whole process. It will continue discussions on the evolving (nuclear terrorism) threats and highlight steps which can be taken together to minimize the use of highly-enriched uranium, secure vulnerable materials, counter nuclear smuggling and deter, detect, and disrupt attempts at nuclear terrorism.

In fact, terrorism is an international phenomenon and the prevailing global security landscape is characterized by instability, volatility, and the reshaping of geopolitical and geo-strategic order due to both traditional and other emerging challenges and threats. Terrorism which has long been evolved and recognized as a serious domestic and international security threat is capable of instigating a systematic crisis at the global level. The contemporary trend in terrorism is towards loosely organized, self-financed, international networks of terrorists who are usually religiously or ideologically motivated. Notwithstanding several threats to international security, looming over the entire issue of international terrorism is the specter of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs).

In this respect, the concluding Nuclear Security Summit is likely to take place in a differently characterized international strategic environment. The emergent global nuclear order being shaped is focusing on a greater role for India’s nuclear weapon status, transfer of nuclear technology and materials especially uranium, and behind the door hectic diplomatic pressure by America to convert India’s Nuclear Supplier Group (NSG) waiver into a full-fledged membership. And Government of Pakistan is being subjected to the renewed pressure to freeze its nuclear weapon and ballistic missile capabilities in an internationally shifting political and geo-strategic alignment, dividing the West and India on one side of the global polarization, while Russia and China on the other. The unstated rationale for Pakistan’s discrimination is due to its unique position in the Muslim world, facing the increasing specter of terrorism. In these terms double standard of the US-led West is quite obvious.

It is notable that Indian nuclear weapons and their related-material are unprotected, as various cases of smuggling and theft have verified.

In July 1998, India’s Central Bureau of Investigation seized eight kg. of nuclear material from Arun, an engineer in Chennai, including two other engineers. It was reported that the uranium was stolen from an atomic research center. On November 7, 2000, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) indicated that Indian police had seized 57 pounds of uranium and arrested two men for illicit trafficking of radioactive material. IAEA said that Indian civil nuclear facilities were vulnerable to thefts. On January 26, 2003, CNN disclosed that Indian company, NEC Engineers Private Ltd. shipped 10 consignments to Iraq, containing highly sensitive equipment including titanium vessels and centrifugal pumps. Indian investigators acknowledged that the company falsified customs documents to get its shipments out of India.

On June 12, 2004, Berkeley Nucleonics Corporation, an American company was fined US $ 300,000 for exporting a nuclear component to the Bhaba Atomic Research Center in India.
In December 2005, United States imposed sanctions on two Indian firms for selling missile goods and chemical arms material to a Muslim country in violation of India's commitment to prevent proliferation. In the same year, Indian scientists, Dr. Surendar and Y S R Prasad had been blacklisted by the US due to their involvement in nuclear theft. In December, 2006, a container packed with radioactive material had been stolen from an Indian fortified research atomic facility near Mumbai.

It is mentionable that correspondingly, in the recent Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) report, Pakistan has been placed at the bottom in ranking for nuclear weapon usable material. To put the records straight, this criterion ignores Islamabad’s stellar role in on-site physical protection, control and accounting procedure, and physical security during transportation. Interestingly, it is difficult to empirically measure how effective nuclear-related material control is unless theft, pilferage or sabotage is reported. Not a single such incident has ever been reported in Pakistan. Contrary, by setting aside Indian poor records as already mentioned, Indian regulations for nuclear sites are written as guidance rather than as binding requirements.

Additionally, India lacks an independent regulatory agency even if it has vowed to establish one. Thus the said report has clearly shown biases against Pakistan, while India has been taken softly.

Conversely, Pakistan has played an active role in international nuclear security summits. Islamabad has accepted President Obama’s proposal for securing all vulnerable materials within four years (i.e. by 2014). Several safety and security measures have been put in place as part of this commitment. Pakistan acceded to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material. But, it has refused to endorse the Convention’s 2005 amendments, because the original articles covered nuclear material in international transport; the amendments sought to extend it to nuclear facilities and to material in peaceful domestic use and storage.

Notably, the recent statement of Pakistan’s National Command Authority (NCA)  which carried a reference of deep satisfaction to country’s national nuclear safety and security measures, and another regarding the NSS process for which NCA members were briefed, hints toward Islamabad’s commitment to nuclear security. The statement reads; “NCA noted with satisfaction that Pakistan has the requisite credentials which entitle it to become part of all multi-lateral export control regimes, including the NSG, for which Islamabad seeks adoption of a non-discriminatory approach. Pakistan was considering ratification of the Convention on Physical Protection of Nuclear Material (Amended), for which NCA gave approval in principle for its ratification’. That is a pitch repeated in 2014 and has echoed in the NCA most recent meeting.

In the same vein, Islamabad has repeatedly reiterated its stance that we have revisited our safety parameters, emergency preparedness and response, and operators’ training and yet again these measures should be recounted in the upcoming international platforms.

As a matter of fact, Pakistan maintains that nuclear security within a state is a national responsibility because then the fundamental responsibility lies at the state. It is difficult that third party can be asked to come and access them, irrespective of their national or international obligations.

Nonetheless Pakistan has lost nothing by joining these summits, but gained, and thus as a responsible nuclear state, Pakistan will continue to contribute meaningfully towards the global efforts to improve nuclear security and nuclear non-proliferation measures. While, internationally, there is an urgent need to develop a mechanism which can provide a process for sustained review and improvement of the nuclear security regime beyond 2016. This is crucial in an environment where an increasing amount of nuclear material and the terrorism threat is escalating.

Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations

Email: sajjad_logic@yahoo.com