UN CONFERENCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE (COP21)

Muhammad Mumtaz. (The writer is a PhD fellow in Public Administration & Govt at FGV-Sao Paulo, Brazil)

The twenty-first session of the Conference of the Parties (COP21) is due to be held between November 30 to December 11 this year. The COP is supreme body of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Main objective of the COP is to achieve a legally binding and universal agreement on climate from all the nations of the world.

It is estimated that the temperature of the world will rise up of 4C by the end of this century. Some studies are indicating that the rise in temperature will be even more than the projected temperature if the challenge of climate change is not tackled properly. Greenhouse Gases (GHG) are one of the major reasons for climate change, causing the rise in temperature, and ultimately threatening the planet.  

It is indicated that natural causes do not explain most observed warming, especially warming since the mid-20th century. It is extremely likely that human activities have been the dominant cause of that warming. The industrialized nations are more responsible for emission of the GHG. Only 7 developed countries account for more than 60% of total GHG emission in the world. 

The National Academy of Sciences indicated that the present concentration level of the GHG in the atmosphere is unprecedented in the past million years which is a very alarming sign. It is imperative to act in order to maintain the temperature of earth and to overcome the projected fatal impacts from such rise in temperature.

The conference is more important than any other universal agreement. It is important to highlight that the focus of the conference is to stabilize the concentrations of the GHG in the atmosphere and to bring it at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic impacts on the climate system of the earth.

It is expected that the world leaders will sign a climate accord in which all nations will agree to take constructive steps to reduce the GHG emissions. The success of the conference is expectedly high as various nations from every corner of the world have accepted the reality of climate change and ready to take resolvable measures. Some of the major emitter of the GHG like United States, China and Canada etc are agreed and offering to take steps to control the emission of the GHG. The recognition of climate change from these countries is a very positive development as previously these developed countries were far away from accepting the reality of climate change. The US is committed to reduce the emission upto 25-26% and to bring at the level of 2005 by 2025. China not only is ready to cut its GHG emissions per unit of gross domestic product by 60-65% from 2005 levels but would increase the share of non-fossil fuels as part of its primary energy consumption to about 20% by 2030. Many other countries have also submitted their commitments to reduce the GHG.

Latin America and Brazil, in particular has a key role in climate talks. It is worth noting that about 25% of the world’s arable land, 22% of its forests, and 31% of fresh water are found in Latin America. Brazil has presented its plan for the conference stating it would cut its emissions by 37% by 2025 through fighting deforestation and boosting the share of renewable in its energy mix.

One of the prominent features of the conference is to make an agreement based on voluntary basis which should be verifiable and contributively. This voluntary approach is adopted new technique in comparison with the Kyoto Protocol (KP). This voluntary step will likely to bring positive result keeping in view the minor contribution of the KP. In the KP it was proposed that emissions abatement would take place from top-down emitters’ countries and it excluded developing countries. However, the present agreement will equally be applicable to all nationals including developing world.

Climate change is an established global phenomenon and it is debated and discussed around the globe. It is the responsibility of everyone to act to reduce carbon emissions that contribute to the problem. Religious scholars, experts and teachers from around the world are united and have the same opinion about climate change which can be one of harbingers for an agreement at the conference.

The religious communities even have issued comprehensive statements on climate change and stressed to confront the challenge. Back in 2005, Islamic leaders issued climate change declaration in Istanbul, Turkey. In the declaration, it is addressed 1.6bn Muslims around the world to work towards phasing out the GHG emissions by 2050 and a 100% renewable energy strategy.

Likewise Pope Francis has a clear-cut stance on climate change. He considers climate change as a ‘principal challenge’ for humanity. He issued a comprehensive document on climate change. He called on humanity to collectively acknowledge a ‘sense of responsibility for our fellow men and women upon which all civil society is founded’.  In his one of prominent addresses while highlighting the issue of climate change he stressed ‘Climate change is a problem which can no longer be left to a future generation’. This is yet another religious strong commitment to curb the GHG emission.

One of other key objectives of the conference is to raise $100 billion per year by the developed countries from 2020. Such funds are very important to counter climate change keeping in view many developing countries lack considerable finances to address climate change. This commitment should enable developing countries to combat climate change properly and it would be helpful to promote sustainable development as well in these countries. It is believed and well perceived by the commitment of developed world that such funds would be established and provided to poor nations to manage climate change.

Many international key players have launched not only national deliberation on climate change but also focusing on international diplomacy in this regard. The conference is recognized as a defining event for the entire globe and the results of the conference will certainly have global implications too. Stakeholders are extremely committed and are debating the way forward and strategies in various parts of the world so that a comprehensive pact can be attained.

Based on aforementioned developments and commitments showed by various countries specially developed world, it is hoped that the world will come up with an appropriate solution. It is highly likely that the conference will bring a positive and balanced way forward for the whole world. Climate campaigners and many experts see an opportunity in the conference and they believe that affords the best chance for agreeing to worldwide reductions in the GHG emissions.

The twenty-first session of the Conference of the Parties (COP21) is due to be held between November 30 to December 11 this year. The COP is supreme body of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Main objective of the COP is to achieve a legally binding and universal agreement on climate from all the nations of the world.

It is estimated that the temperature of the world will rise up of 4C by the end of this century. Some studies are indicating that the rise in temperature will be even more than the projected temperature if the challenge of climate change is not tackled properly. Greenhouse Gases (GHG) are one of the major reasons for climate change, causing the rise in temperature, and ultimately threatening the planet.  

It is indicated that natural causes do not explain most observed warming, especially warming since the mid-20th century. It is extremely likely that human activities have been the dominant cause of that warming. The industrialized nations are more responsible for emission of the GHG. Only 7 developed countries account for more than 60% of total GHG emission in the world. 

The National Academy of Sciences indicated that the present concentration level of the GHG in the atmosphere is unprecedented in the past million years which is a very alarming sign. It is imperative to act in order to maintain the temperature of earth and to overcome the projected fatal impacts from such rise in temperature.

The conference is more important than any other universal agreement. It is important to highlight that the focus of the conference is to stabilize the concentrations of the GHG in the atmosphere and to bring it at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic impacts on the climate system of the earth.

It is expected that the world leaders will sign a climate accord in which all nations will agree to take constructive steps to reduce the GHG emissions. The success of the conference is expectedly high as various nations from every corner of the world have accepted the reality of climate change and ready to take resolvable measures. Some of the major emitter of the GHG like United States, China and Canada etc are agreed and offering to take steps to control the emission of the GHG. The recognition of climate change from these countries is a very positive development as previously these developed countries were far away from accepting the reality of climate change. The US is committed to reduce the emission upto 25-26% and to bring at the level of 2005 by 2025. China not only is ready to cut its GHG emissions per unit of gross domestic product by 60-65% from 2005 levels but would increase the share of non-fossil fuels as part of its primary energy consumption to about 20% by 2030. Many other countries have also submitted their commitments to reduce the GHG.

Latin America and Brazil, in particular has a key role in climate talks. It is worth noting that about 25% of the world’s arable land, 22% of its forests, and 31% of fresh water are found in Latin America. Brazil has presented its plan for the conference stating it would cut its emissions by 37% by 2025 through fighting deforestation and boosting the share of renewable in its energy mix.

One of the prominent features of the conference is to make an agreement based on voluntary basis which should be verifiable and contributively. This voluntary approach is adopted new technique in comparison with the Kyoto Protocol (KP). This voluntary step will likely to bring positive result keeping in view the minor contribution of the KP. In the KP it was proposed that emissions abatement would take place from top-down emitters’ countries and it excluded developing countries. However, the present agreement will equally be applicable to all nationals including developing world.

Climate change is an established global phenomenon and it is debated and discussed around the globe. It is the responsibility of everyone to act to reduce carbon emissions that contribute to the problem. Religious scholars, experts and teachers from around the world are united and have the same opinion about climate change which can be one of harbingers for an agreement at the conference.

The religious communities even have issued comprehensive statements on climate change and stressed to confront the challenge. Back in 2005, Islamic leaders issued climate change declaration in Istanbul, Turkey. In the declaration, it is addressed 1.6bn Muslims around the world to work towards phasing out the GHG emissions by 2050 and a 100% renewable energy strategy.

Likewise Pope Francis has a clear-cut stance on climate change. He considers climate change as a ‘principal challenge’ for humanity. He issued a comprehensive document on climate change. He called on humanity to collectively acknowledge a ‘sense of responsibility for our fellow men and women upon which all civil society is founded’.  In his one of prominent addresses while highlighting the issue of climate change he stressed ‘Climate change is a problem which can no longer be left to a future generation’. This is yet another religious strong commitment to curb the GHG emission.

One of other key objectives of the conference is to raise $100 billion per year by the developed countries from 2020. Such funds are very important to counter climate change keeping in view many developing countries lack considerable finances to address climate change. This commitment should enable developing countries to combat climate change properly and it would be helpful to promote sustainable development as well in these countries. It is believed and well perceived by the commitment of developed world that such funds would be established and provided to poor nations to manage climate change.

Many international key players have launched not only national deliberation on climate change but also focusing on international diplomacy in this regard. The conference is recognized as a defining event for the entire globe and the results of the conference will certainly have global implications too. Stakeholders are extremely committed and are debating the way forward and strategies in various parts of the world so that a comprehensive pact can be attained.

Based on aforementioned developments and commitments showed by various countries specially developed world, it is hoped that the world will come up with an appropriate solution. It is highly likely that the conference will bring a positive and balanced way forward for the whole world. Climate campaigners and many experts see an opportunity in the conference and they believe that affords the best chance for agreeing to worldwide reductions in the GHG emissions.

Escalating Violent Extremism in South Asia

Zulqarnain Sewag is an Urdu poet, freelance journalist and researcher in public policy. He can be reached at zulqarnainsewag@gmail.com

Fundamentalism is the mother of extremism. Those nations which stick to superstitious dogmatism and lifeless traditionalism either destroy or can’t saunter in pace with the contemporary world of science, technology, innovations and discoveries. The whole of South Asia is fussed with this muck and is beset with numerous intrastate and interstate conflicts.

At this juncture, in South Asia, three major chunks of overall population, the Hindus, the Muslims and the Buddhists are fuelling violent extremism. Unfortunately, all these segments link extremism with religion. What does it mean? Do religions promote extremism or do their followers who use respective religion for personal ambitions or is it illiteracy or is extremism fused through external forces?

Every religion breeds extremism. Moderate forces in all religions are weak. Hinduism has internal motivation of extremism, Buddhism motivates from Hinduism and the Muslims on one hand are drummed in their history and on the other hand are playing in the hands of both the capitalist US and other Western countries and communist Russia. For the US and the West, if a persona non grata is elected as a member of an assembly, s/he remains no more persona non grata. The ostracised Narendra Singh Modi is its prime example. The invasions of the Indus valley by Aryans, Muslims and Britishers spurred extremism and damaged peaceful co-existence in the whole sub-continent which is still existent and has become protracted.

A Hindu extremist cult leader, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, who was later known as Osho was the one which first used a dangerous bacteria named salmonella as a biological weapon in a political rally, a grocery store and a public building which affected around 700 people while living on a ranch in Oregon, USA in 1984. His men also tried to strike government by flying a bomb-laden plane as a weapon in the town of The Dalles much before the tactic was used by Muslim extremists al-Qaida. All this was done to build a worldwide commune.

Presently in India, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) is the notorious extremist organization which has around 4.5 million members, 20000 religious schools, 2.5 million students and 45000 charitable organizations. The political wing of RSS is Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which has ruled the country once under Atal Bihari Vajpayee and now ruling under Narendra Singh Modi, the architect of the Gujarat massacre. Shiv Sena is the terrorist wing of the RSS. Dozens of prominent Indian scientists, writers and filmmakers have returned their prestigious awards to the government against the growing climate of intolerance, institutionalization of rigid religious mindset and curtailment of freedom of speech.

It is also working against all the foreigners and people of all sects other than fundamentalist Hindus. The saffron extremism is spreading out of its borders as India has put an embargo on Nepal for her declaring her country as a secular state in August 2015. It has also strained the societies in Sri Lanka, Bhutan and Myanmar. LTTE, a terrorist organization in Sri Lanka was also bred in India. If this mounting transnational extremism is not barred, it will give rise to the global war on terror and violent extremism.

The Buddhist monks are honking in Myanmar against the Rohingya Muslims. The Rohingyas are persecuted, denied  citizenship, forced to bondage labour in government projects and are prohibited to marry without prior government permission. The Citizen Act, 1982 of the country does not recognize 1.5 million Rohingyas as inhabitants. They are even outlawed to attend a government high school. Thousands have been killed. This Buddhist violent extremism is impinging on the Budhist community living in the neighbouring countries. The 969 movement is led to contain Muslim expansionism in the country.

In Sri Lanka, after the LTTE, Bodu Bala Sena (BSS), a Buddhist nationalist organization was formed in 2012. BSS has attacked the Bangladesh High Commission and English Media Channels like BBC in 2013. The attacks were on Muslims, homes, shops, factories, mosques and a nursery as well a Centre for Society and Religion in Colombo in 2014. Jathika Hela Urumaya, or the National Heritage Party founded in 2004 is the political wing of BSS and is led by Buddhist monks. Mahindra Rajapaksa, former president of the country, is reportedly going to use it to get another chance to rule but in the long run if it happens, it will prove to be very destructive.

Afghanistan is the epicentre of all international evils and games due to its location, backwardness, guerrilla warfare, divided tribalism, multi-ethnic composition, and as an axle among the surrounding energy resource countries. It has always been an easy prey to enter and a strong wish to safely go back. Once upon a time, it played a role as a buffer state between the warriors of the Great Game, Britain and Russia, and now it is facilitating the imposition of the New Great Game from the 1970’s by the pilots of Capitalism and Communism.

After tribal fighters, it has produced the Taliban, nurtured al-Qaida and now accommodating hired killers, Indian agents and ISIS. Peace in South Asia is based on  peace in Afghanistan but as there are negligible chances of peace in it, South Asia will remain wounded and aching. Indian and Pakistani factors are also as dangerous for regional peace as forces playing in Afghanistan.

Pakistan is the victim of incompetent political leadership, inflated military and mosque mongers. Minorities are marginalized. Poverty, corruption and illiteracy are rampant. The appeasing policies of the different governments, law enforcement agencies (LEAs), military and para-military forces toward extremists, hardliners, potential terrorists, non-state actors, unbounded mosques and seminaries and religious organizations have put the country on the verge of an outrageous and precarious predicament. The image of the country in the world is tarnished. Globally,other nations are not ready to accept Pakistanis happily, and every country is suspicious of them.

Though the country has banned a large number of peace disruptive organizations many are either implicitly or explicitly functioning under the nose of the LEAs. After the brutal mass execution of children in the Army Public School in Peshawar, a National Action Plan was devised but it has failed to generate due results due to incompetency, partiality and pick and choose policies of both the military and the incumbent government. If peace in the country is not restored, if the marginalized segments of the society are not protected, if the partiality is not addressed, then the country will undergo more violence and will also keep on exporting violent extremism beyond its borders.

Desire of integration: A case of Gilgit Baltistan

he he

Kashif Zaheer Kamboh (writer is currently working as research analyst and can be reached at kashif.zaheer@rocketmail.com)

As a crossroad of various civilizations Gilgit-Baltistan (GB) again emerged as a connector of half world population. The territory of GB consists of seven districts, embracing natural and adventurous hills. 6 out of 10 highest peaks of the world are erected in this areas. Potential of Hydroelectric generations is approximately 40 K MW in this area. Three mountainous towers Himalaya, Karakoram and HiduKush are meeting by producing stunning complexion. GB a homeland of 1.5 million people, geo-strategically vibrant and embraced with natural resources is grabbing world attention day by day.

People are striving in a state of political isolation just due to the resolution of Security Council combined with a non-serious attitude of India. Students of history ought to remember that, Army General Gracey refused to obey orders of Quaid e Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah and didn’t intervene in Northern Areas and Kashmir. Col. Wazir Ehsan Ali khan, Col Mirza Hassan Khan, and Captain Raja Babar Khan triumphed Dogra forces (Gunsara Singh Governor was arrested) and moved as pride successor till Ladakh. Locals formulated their own government which was later on annexed with Pakistan as a symbol of good will gesture on November 1947. The case of Gilgit and Kashmir are taken together because it’s said that they were ruled by Dogra Raja of Kashmir. GB’s accession with Kashmir was a forceful subjugation and nothing else. For a moment if we consider that, GB was ruled by Gunsara Singh (representative of Dogra of Kashmir) due to which this land is part and parcel of Kashmir. Then Pakistan ought to claim Kabul, Qandahar and half of Afghanistan because these areas were ruled by Singh forces once part of Punjab along with an area of KPK. Secondly, Sub-continent was ruled by British and Central Asian Republics were ruled by USSR so what about them??

GB enjoyed a status of independent state till 1842 under the rule of locals. In 1847 Sikh Army over threw the local rulers and captured GB which was later retook by British. They hand over this area to Maharaja of Kashmir and eventually liberated by sons of soil on May 1947 by putting Shah Raes Khan as president. Our rulers and bureaucracy ought to understand history is always written by victorious, not by the losers. According to Ex-Chief Engineer and prestigious personality of GB Mr. Muzaffar Abbas, this is the only movement in the world that is the movement of affiliation, not separation. People are proud Pakistani’s but unfortunately with the passage of time this patriotic feeling is eroding due to certain reasons. Prevailing confusion of integration, the vulnerability of future and sense of marginalization can only be tackled by giving a status, equal to other provinces as the fifth province of Pakistan. Lessons from the history of Baluchistan needed to be considered with a close observation. This is universally proved that political movements turn into weaponry and liberation movements due to the sense of marginalization and lack of power devolution. Pakistan doesn't have time to go for more and more experiments. Generally, all the violent movements are initiated by the native people finance by enemies and later on results are enjoyed by some interest groups. Indian intervention in lieu of Baluchistan and their intentions in GB must be encountered by ceasing growing sense of deprivation.

China wants to play a vibrant role by the economic and political uplifting of the region via China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). The Pakistan is a neighbour of China and Central Asian Republics because GB shares its border with China and Wakhan. CPEC gets its entry and exit gates from this very pure land. This time eastern neighbor unleashed a comprehensive campaign by taking the status of GB. Here Pakistan should opt proactive approach rather than responsive. Here is need to build new diplomatic narratives with a powerful propagation on diplomatic corridors. Time gone when Pakistan’s diplomatic gestures were ineffective, weak, enforced, and foreign spooned. If we want to stay as a proud nation then diplomatic bosses need to reconsider their cognitive extensions. Recently we have seen our youth provided a strong rebuttal to any Indian propagation. Anti-CPEC campaign, Anti-Pakistan narratives are combated by Pakistani youth on social media and Kashmir cause is rightly up hold by unpaid soldiers in the cyber world. The strategic, Political and economic significance of this area can’t be ignored due to certain reasons. A nation already well empowered with patriotism can clear all fault lines of ethnicity, sect, and grievances with strong diplomatic gestures at the governmental end.

It’s overwhelming narrative that, Pakistan is reluctant towards the annexure of GB due to Karachi agreement of 1949 and resolutions of plebiscite at UN Security Council. Recognizing GB as a constitutional province doesn’t mean that they have nothing to do with Kashmir. All the game falls on the diplomatic side if they went able to handle diplomatic front then condition of locals will be better than ever.  As mentioned earlier dwellers of GB are as loyal as another part of Pakistan. When the times come they fought for Kashmir, for Pakistan and carved brave example for their decedents. Devolution of power from the centre to province can nip a number of grievances. They always favored and voted for federalist parties. In the previous election, one can see any political party who called upon ethnic nationalist got collapsed. Persistence ignorance can divert their affiliation towards ethnic nationalists inevitably means unfavoured and intensified situation. GB is a land of victorious so don't let the patriotic people be a rebel by unrecognizing their demand from being equally Pakistani. With reference to writer’s discussion with Amjad Nazir (a politician and activist from GB) adding the fifth province to the federal administrative units will strengthen the federation by resolving the crisis of governance, disarray, and confusion. Loyal people deserve equal representation in National Assembly, Senate, and Council of common affairs, NFC Award, and Government Sector departments. Pakistan’s political and bureaucratic bosses ought to sharp their eyes by reconsidering the statement that, National interest falls above all interests beyond ethical bindings and personal relations.

Reincarnation of Hitler

Dr. Kausar Talat can be reached at: kausar.talat@gmail.com

Shortly afterwards, at around3pm, Zakia Jafri watched in horror from her balcony as rioters marched her naked husband from their home and chopped off his fingers, hands, arms and head, then tossed the body on an open pyre. All the while the police looked on without intervening, telling victims, "We have no orders to save you." An investigative magazine later caught several ringleaders on camera claiming that the chief minister had approved the attacks: "Modi had given us three days to do whatever we could," one of them boasted. What happened in Gulbarg that day lies at the heart of the accusations against Modi. He denies all knowledge of events there and claims that he was not informed until 8.30pm,five hours after the massacre had finished. This version of events has been accepted by the Supreme Court appointed special investigation team, which examined the matter at length. However, there are clear contradictions in the SIT report that make it hard to accept: for instance, records of a flurry of communications during the afternoon, as the violence unfolded, between police officers present in Gulbarg and their superiors. The SIT report praises Modi for holding a series of meetings with police officers throughout the day. If he was being briefed hour by hour, how then could he not have known about Gulbarg until late that evening? As a result, the report has been much criticized, especially since a former associate of Modi's took out an affidavit claiming that a draft of the report had been sent to the Gujarat state lawyers for vetting and possible redrafting. In the meantime, the case, including a new challenge from Zakia Jafri, continues to work its way through the legal system and there has not yet been a final ruling. But it is not true, as is often stated by Modi's supporters, that the Supreme Court has given him a "clean chit". In reality, the court has yet to rule on the matter; the factsre main in dispute and the case is ongoing. For several years after the riots, Narendra Modi was a political pariah. Thirty-two people were finally convicted of murder, attempted murder and conspiracy over the riots, among them Maya Kodnani, Modi's one time minister for women; she was sentenced to 28 years in jail. Sonia Gandhi denounced Modi as a "merchant of death" and several BJP MPs also broke ranks to criticize him. The US and UK refused him visas. The turning point came in October2008, when Tata Motors moved its car plant for its much-publicized new budget hatchback, the Nano, from the leftist-dominated West Bengal to the pro-business Gujarat. In 2011, Ford invested $1bn (£630m) in setting up another car plant. Before long, Gujarat started to make headlines, not for riots, but for its new image as an economic powerhouse. From 2003,Modi began holding an annual summit, Vibrant Gujarat, which cumulatively generated investment pledges of $920bn. All the most prominent Indian captains of industry, from Ratan Tata to the Ambanis and Mittals, rallied behind Modi and declared him India's most business friendly chief minister. However Modi remains the most polarizing figure in Indian politics. Many intellectuals and urban liberals view him as an almost satanic figure pushing India towards fascism. They point to his record with dissent: journalists from the Times of India who wrote against his government had sedition charges brought against them; Rahul Sharma, a policeman who helped convict many of the 2002rioters, had his promotion blocked("due to misspellings"); Test a Setalvad, the lawyer who brought riot cases against him, had charges of embezzlement slapped on her. Most sinister of all, Haren Pandya, Modi's former home minister, who agreed togive evidence against him to an independent commission of inquiry in to the riots, was first made to resign his position, then deprived of his seat and finally murdered in mysterious circumstances in 2003."Modi, the argument goes, displays all the signs of reincarnated Hitler."William Dalrymple With a haul of almost 280 out of 543 seats gives Modi a free hand to bring about deep-seated change -similar to tectonic shift that may change the face of India or even subcontinent including Bangladesh and Pakistan. For this reason PM Nawaz Sharif must be extremely cautious in dealing with the new government of India. He must pay attention to history and past dealings with India. This is the time Pakistani political and defense leadership work closely emphasizing common strategy. Pakistani PM must listen to ISI and Pakistan Army remembering that Modi met him only because he is the president of Pakistan while his agenda and priority is to dismantle Pakistan. PM Nawaz Sharif must realize that any little success of Modi shall result in dethroning Nawaz and his family from the ruling elite of Pakistan forever. Pakistan should expect the west supporting India under Modi for couple of reasons: one the agenda of both parties is common - to destroy nuclear Pakistan and to make more money as George Bush's grand father,the late US senator Prescott Bush, a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.

India’s foreign policy with Pakistan: A case from history

Kashif Zaheer Kamboh (Writer did his M Phil in public policies and currently working as a research and Policy Analyst in an Islamabad based think tank)

On 28th October 1947 Chief of Indian Army Field Marshall Auchinkleck explicitly stated that, “I have no hesitation whatsoever in affirming that the present Indian cabinet is implacably determined to do all in their power to prevent the establishment of the dominion of Pakistan on a firm basis”.

Indian foreign policy is highly influenced with the single agenda to re-unite Indian and de-stable Pakistan on whatever cost. Clear policy statement by Auchinkleck approximately two and half months after the division of British India demonstrates ridiculous intentions. A foundation stone and guiding slot of India’s foreign policy was to de-stable Pakistan. An open aggression, ridiculous attitude, hypocritical gesture and substantial negation to the Pakistan’s assistance always served Akhand Bharat (Greater India) cause. Leaders of ruling party in India started a campaign to reunite two newly born states. Nehru-Beaton nexus went successful in creating fragile, delicate and mouth eaten Pakistan. This was propagated by ruling party leaders in India and analysts that, Pakistan will beg for reunion but surprisingly this could never  happened. There is an  open threat and worse intention to uphold monopoly in the foreign policy of India to conspire and undo partition. Obviously an encounter policy to defend motherland after the sacrifice of millions of lives was mandatory. Was not it ?

Contrary to this Foreign policy of Pakistan was laid down by the founder of Pakistan Muhammad Ali Jinnah . He bench-marked a peaceful way foreword for foreign policy in following lines,

“Our foreign policy is one of the friendliness and goodwill towards the nations of the world.We don’t cherish aggressive designs against any country or nation. We believe the principle of honesty, and fair play in national and international dealings and are prepared to make our utmost contribution to the peace and promotion among the nations of the world. Pakistan will never be found lacking in extending its material and moral support to the oppressed and suppressed people of the world, and in upholding the principles of the united nations charter”

This is one of the best outlay for any foreign policy laid down by the creator of any nation. There is no hostility, materialistic approach or prejudice for any nation including India.Clearly speaking, eastern neighbor always remained with cryptic mind and politically obscure towards newly established state Pakistan. There were number of factors in Indian policy which compelled Pakistani policy makers to craft a defensive foreign policy with an encounter effect and legitimate resistant. Chain of events happened which pulled Pakistan’s foreign policy in the existing shape. Indian government and political leadership was hostile to Pakistan since its birth. After partition they withheld all assets and funds by refusing to act upon partition plan.  Mr Gandhi intervened and used his influence for the release of Pakistani funds and assets by accepting Pakistan as sovereign state. This was totally parting of ways. Here government of India lead by Mr. Nehru and Mr. Gandhi does have heir own and opposite directions. Indian social and political environment was too aggressive and poisonous that, Mr Gandhi was assassinated just due to his soft attitude and rational acceptance to Pakistan. Congress and other extremists organizations like Rashtiriya Saviyk Singh, BajrangDil were openly chanting slogans against Pakistan, partition and Muslims.

After partition in 1947 Pakistan faced an uphill task as compared to India. Pakistan was to rise form the scratch. British India was partitioned into two new states Hindustan and Pakistan. But here Hindustani leaders played a evil trick. Pakistani leaders tried to beat this trick but went unable to get success. Hindustan declared herself as India  and kept all the international affiliations, assets, links and associations. As a part of foreign policy India captured all the embassies, their assets and staff working abroad. One of the big association India kept was association of league of nations and United nations. Pakistan had to start afresh and they started to open its embassies across globe.  More than 20 million people migrated across the newly established international border. According to Pande more than 10 million Muslims migrated from India to Pakistan whereas 8 million Hindu fled to Hindustan. Here one must remember Hindustan was 10 times greater than Pakistan and they received more assets and less migrants. Strategically Muslims were pushed towards Pakistani border in order to create chaos and disorder for newly established state. Pushing Muslims towards newly established estate was a part of whole game played by congress to de-stable new born country.

On 15th August 1947 Junagardh acceded to Pakistan  as a part and parcel. Nawab of Junahgurdh sent a formal proposal to Governor General of Pakistan Muhammad Ali Jinnah. After consulting with Liaquat Ali Khan and other elders of Muslim League proposal was accepted. But Indian military forces intervened and captured Junagardh. Pakistan took the case to UNO and still pending. Another state Hyderabad was one of the richest state in India. Nawab was thinking to declare independence but later he decided to join Pakistan and sent proposal. Again here Indian forces intervened and captured whole business of state. Thirdly Indian army intervened and landed on Srinagar airport and other important places of Kashmir. But this was not Junagardg or Hyderabad. Kashmir proved a hard nut to crack and local Kashmirs revolted against this genocidal intervention and liberated a part of Kashmir. Nehru took the case to UNO and requested for plebiscite. If Pakistan is pleading the cause of an oppressed nation then it doesn’t mean Pakistan is hostile to India. Father of the nation Muhammad Ali Jinnah said, Kashmir is unfinished agenda and jugular vain of Pakistan. This was not only about Jinnah but other leaders like Liaquat Ali Khan said Kashmir as cardinal belief of every Pakistani. Later on Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto raised voice for Kashmir as an integral part of Pakistan. Encroaching these states put Pakistani policy makers to enhance their relations with those countries who can support their agenda at UNO.

Hostile, xenophobic and Chankya’s vision based Indian foreign policy always tried to put Pakistan under its influence by using every sort of tact, no matter  bad or worse. In September 1949 India devalued rupee and asked Pakistan to devalue her currency.  Pakistan decided not to  follow this episode by declaring herself an independent and sovereign state. Indians got aggressive and cut down supply of coal to Pakistan. This ceased most important and mandatory icon of communication and transportation. At that time Pakistan railways was the major source of transportation and trade. They not only cut down the most important coal supply but also trade between India and Pakistan.This ultimately activated Pakistani foreign policy makers to keep in eye this sort of action while crafting policy and relations with eastern neighbor.

In 1950 Indian military moved towards Punjab borders with an alarming situation and threat to capture Punjab. Whole situation was recapped in 1965 more intensity and pressure. This lead Pakistani foreign policy stakeholders to go for new option to defend country form any intervention from India as happened in the case of Junagardh, Hyderabad and Kashmir. In September 1965 Indian army crossed international boundary line and attacked on Pakistan. Some writers put the onus of starting 1965 war on Bhutto, unmindful of the fact that they are branding Pakistan as the aggressor. However, the matter of the fact is, that the 1965 Indo-Pakistan war did not begin with Operation Gibraltar. It began much earlier when India occupied Kargil in 16-17 May 1965. Operation Gibraltar was launched three months after that on 5 August 1965.

Later on 1971 was another big intervention and violation of international rules by Indians across border based on their Arthshaster based guide line. They trained, weaponized and launched terrorist groups like  Mukti Bahni ( Militant Groups) in order to create violence and anarchy in eastern Pakistan. In running year while visiting Bangladesh Modi himself admitted that India was behind this conspiracy. During his visits to China, UAE, and USA, anti-Pakistan sentiment and aggressive tune was indicating foot prints of attitude of Indian establishment towards Pakistan. Even in their local and provincial election campaigns in Bihar, Uterpardaish, and Delhi where BJP’s Modi poisoned the whole environment by repeating his open intentions. A practical substantial intervention is rising day by day due to rigid, extremist and non cooperative stance in Indian tune.

Here I would like to mention about history that, it can’t be totally erased. One can alter, modify, articulate any event in his favor but reality shouts louder to show its presence. There is no full stop in Indian interventions in Pakistan since its inception. Pakistan always come up with defensive and conciliation policy whereas eastern neighbor renamed offensive, recently cold start doctrine was replied with the advent of short range, technical nuclear weapons.  Based upon the above discussed facts and figures one is free to create his own real opinion. One thing about Pakistan’s foreign policy is true that, it is defensive to Indian intervention and legitimate resistance to their foreign policy  in the region and globe. It seems Indian policy makers are completely unaware about ground realities. They ought to realize the unfolding of 21st century and Pakistan’s sovereign status. Regarding reunion of India Jinnah said, there is no power on earth that can undo Pakistan.