The Chinese use a term ‘xuanchuán’, which literally means propaganda — an intrinsic tact of the Communist Party of China (CPC) to legitimise various state actions and to posture a certain inevitable destiny, muscularity and invincibility among all stakeholders, domestically and externally. The Chinese leadership often teases and releases unverifiable information about its military preparedness and technological advancements. The deliberate sneak-peak of the fifth generation stealth fighter plane J-20, nuclear submarines, aircraft carrier programme and cruise missiles among others are all a part of the intimidation and muscle-flexing exercise. A carefully calibrated media environment advances a narrative of the next-generation capabilities like hypersonic weaponry, cyberwarfare and an overall security framework that entails the most advanced ‘anti-access/area-denial’ military doctrines (A2/AD). This perception of the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) capability (entailing ground forces, Navy, Air Force, rocket force and strategic support force) then supports the more political and diplomatic aggression that the Chinese leadership indulges on its expansionist agenda in Taiwan and South China Sea belligerence. This sense of ‘war-clouds’ was implicit in the Chinese President Xi Jinping’s first order of 2019 to the PLA, where he stated, “All military units must correctly understand major national security and development trends and strengthen their sense of unexpected hardship, crisis and battle”.
Undeniably, the PLA is the largest military force in the world (two million active strength) with the second largest defence budget of $175 billion, annually. This is nearly four times that of India ($45 billion) and it grew at an unprecedented rate of eight per cent over the previous year. This generous outlay was possible due to the Chinese economic juggernaut that affords the indulgences of the interlinked diplomatic-military Chinese footprint across the globe and funds crucial investments for the PLA’s modernisation and technology development. Yet, military analysts are not entirely convinced of the PLA’s battle-preparedness.
For starters, the PLA is still technically a ‘party Army’ and is given to distractive and time-consuming indoctrination sessions at all operational levels by political officers of the CPC. While all career officers of the PLA are CPC members, the apex decision-making body for the PLA is drawn from the communist party committees that are dominated by civilian party members and ideologues, as opposed to career military men. The state is forever paranoid about regime-change (especially after the Tiananmen Square incident), and, therefore, the top brass of the PLA is firmly reined in under the party directive that could affect serious soldiering, culture and professional efficacy.
The second major concern is the operational ‘jointsmanship’ among various serving arms of the PLA as that requires a coordinated fighting capability, responsive command system, logistical/maintenance framework and inter-service interlinkages for a seamless operation — these shortcomings have been routinely pointed out and internally accepted with concerted efforts being made to overcome the same. The days of Chinese ‘human wave attacks’ a la 1962 are passé, and the Gulf Wars of the 1990s exposed the hollowness of simple ‘numeric superiority’ and ‘ideological armies’ as opposed to professional soldiering. Islands of technological advancements and advanced weaponry need to coincide with the requisite skills, training and handling experience of effectively deploying the same under combat-stress situations by the soldiers.
Unlike most major militaries (the US, NATO, Russia and India among others) that have partaken in the invaluable and irreplaceable experience of combat operations, the Chinese PLA remains the most combat-inexperienced major military in the world. All four key elements of war — soldiering, leadership, weaponry and doctrines — are posited on conjecture and untested claims. The last major combat for PLA was 40 years ago against Vietnam, where the ostensibly inferior Vietnamese forces inflicted a serious blow to the bungled Chinese invasion.
Earlier still, and contrary to 1962, the Sino-Indian clashes at Cho La and Nathu La in 1967 had resulted in a bloody nose for the PLA. Purely from the time perspective, that leaves virtually no one in the active PLA with any battle experience. Despite breathing fire on Taiwan, Japan or incidents like Doklam, the PLA has not secured any tangible ground on the ‘enemy’. In comparison, the US has been involved in the Middle East and Afghanistan in recent times, the Indian (and Pakistani) forces have had Kargil and multiple domestic insurgencies that have consistently tested their ‘software’ and ‘hardware.’ The US has tested its prime weaponry like the GBU-43/B (‘mother of all bombs’) in Afghanistan, its F-22 Raptor stealth fighter jets in ‘combat surges’ over Syria, as reportedly have the Russians, who deployed their SU-57 stealth fighter prototypes. Vladimir Shamanov, the Russian Duma’s Defence Committee head, has claimed that Russia has tested ‘over 200 new weapons’ in Syria. Whereas, the efficacy of advanced Chinese weaponry is a matter of pure claims by Beijing.
The PLA is undoubtedly undergoing a major overhaul and investment in terms of material upgradation, training and integration. However, all these investments are predicated on the continuing ‘bull run’ of the Chinese economy — dark clouds of an economic slowdown loom and China has recorded its slowest growth rate since 1990. The inevitable US-China trade wars, too, will take their own toll and can trigger unfathomable headaches for the CPC to manage. This could usher in a revised set of priorities (for example, cuts for PLA and defence industry) for the CPC in order to keep the more important lid on its restive masses from questioning the regime during an economic downturn. The famed ‘cheque-book’ diplomacy to ‘buy out’ sovereign loyalty, for example CPEC, Djibouti or Philippines, could also become an immediate casualty. Lastly, the recent Chinese belligerence has led to the emergence of powerful counter-opposition to checkmate China’s ambitions. The ‘Quad’ (US, Japan, Australia and India) is also symptomatic of the strategic evolution that works to the detriment of the Chinese. Perhaps like its economic juggernaut that has apparently ‘overheated’, China’s diplomatic-military assertions and bellicosity by the PLA are a lot more about posturing than it can realistically sustain or ‘bite’. It will remain the cynosure for the US, and to that extent, the saber-rattling by the Chinese PLA is here to stay. A closer analysis, however, leaves a lot of unanswered questions on its battle preparedness.
(The writer, a military veteran, is a former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Puducherry)
Writer: Bhopinder Singh
Courtesy: The Pioneer
The strategy to whip up religious sentiments by harping on the issue of numerical preponderance of a particular community has helped certain terrorist organisations create and reinforce their base to indulge in proxy war with states across the globe. Central Asia is no exception to this.
The recent terror attacks in Scandinavian region, particularly in Stockholm and Istanbul, highlight the fact that the region continues to sit on a powder keg. These Central Asian nations face myriad challenges.
In addition to the question of economic aggrandisement and nation-building exercise, there have been a number of security related issues. According to recent reports, many individuals and non–state actors operating from the Central Asian Region (CAR) have been held responsible for exporting terrorism. Rampant use of battery improvised devices, knives and cars in individual terror attacks, massacring foreign tourists and hostage takings have been some recent tactics adopted by terrorists operating from Turkey, Norway, Sweden and Uzbekistan. Recently there were attempts to export terrorism from Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. On account of rapid rise in terror threats, Moscow recognised the need to set up Troika alliance in the past.
The need for a common security apparatus has exposed Central Asia’s long painful process of institution building. The recent influx of illegal migrants and spate of terrorist activities in China and Russia have shaken them off complacency and compelled them to seek cooperation for tackling the menace of transnational terrorism.
The relatively calm profile of CAR took a beating when Democratic Party, the Rastokhez Front and Islamic Revivalist Party organised the anti-government activities in Tajikistan during May 1991. This exposed simmering discontent among Muslim communities and created background for psychological ambience for the growth of Islamic militancy in the region. Besides, spate of activities in Moscow-based Islamic Renaissance Party gave a fresh impetus to Islamist groups across the entire CAR.
The influx of refugees from disturbed areas of Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Iraq and Syria has added a new dimension to the existing problem. Although Russia has always acknowledged the economic and political significance of the region, its policies towards locals have been not been consistent as desired by these groups. Its policies wavered in attempts to persuade national minorities to acquiesce to or assimilate into the Russian culture.
While there is abundance of oil, natural gas resources, minerals, cotton, textile commodity in the CAR, the region still has to catch up with advanced countries with regard to job facilities, housing, consumer commodities and education.
Some critiques hold lack of economic and political will responsible for the vulnerability of the region. The people in CAR are expecting governments to accelerate plan formulations and undertake prompt measures for improving access to the means of production, economic opportunities such as proper usage of natural resources, income and employability and developing the capability of locals to produce more.
Besides, the governments in this region need to cooperate and coordinate with regard to any security challenge posed by terrorists. Since service sector is quite impressive in CAR, particularly in Kazakhstan amounting for more than 50 per cent of the total GDP, the key to economic transformation lies in integrating it further.
The disgruntled groups have constantly expressed their dissatisfaction, many times violently. Thus, riots and bomb blasts occur at regular intermissions. The brands of distraught people have gained tremendous support from refugees who have immigrated to escape ethnic strife in neighbouring countries.
Fundamentalists have acquired sophisticated arms, training and developed a close network with rogue nations around the world.
With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, then Communist leader Islam Karimov formed his Government in Uzbekistan and Sepermurad Niyazov became the President of Turkmenistan. Both these Governments were authoritative in nature and very unresponsive to the dissatisfied groups. As a result many splinters emerged within groups.
The fundamentalist Islamic factions have often lashed out at the governments in CAR. Consequently the governments expressed their concern about the separatist forces and foresaw the necessity of using force to keep the lid on the ethnic cauldron.
Although it is difficult to predict what new ideas and strategies could help CAR to improve economic situation and develop security capabilities, it is evident that to a large extent economic activities in the coming years will be influenced by the region’s capability to fight inflation and develop anti-terrorist mechanism.
Central Asia is of immense value to the world because of its strategic location and very rich oil resources. The US has already declared CAR as very crucial region for strategic purpose. In addition to the economic importance it attaches to the region, the US is apparently keen on checking the rise of Islamic militancy and Russian influence. The growing mistrust between Moscow and Washington for their respective influence in CAR has made the entire region a playground for power game. China has already started spreading its wings all over the region in order to ensure its rising hegemony. For Afghanistan, Turkey, Pakistan and Iran, the region has great potential for economic and cultural exchanges. The most important link is the Islamic solidarity which is lately getting culminated in the form of sponsored agents of terror. Most European countries are concerned and worried about the possibility of increasing Muslim fundamentalism in the region.
If unchecked, fundamentalism nurturing militancy can pose serious challenges to the neighbouring countries. This is evident from the chaos in Syria and disturbances in Afghanistan. On the other hand, China is worried about the presence of Uyghur Muslim ethnic group in Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan. There are roughly about 7.32 million Uyghurs in Xinjiang province of China. Recently there has been upsurge in the militant activities of Uyghur in Xinjiang.
The interest of the Muslim countries in the region is not limited to commerce alone. They want to influence the CAR in Islamic terms. Although more articulate and accurate efforts by intelligence and security agencies can provide more information about such groups of the region, there is still a confusion whether such mechanism is successful in dealing with these terrorists who are driven by misinterpretation of the religion. In such a situation the Troika must ensure that the fundamentalists do not operate from the bases in safe heavens of rogue countries. The best way perhaps would be to identify the areas of national and regional resilience and develop capabilities domestically and externally for combating terrorism.
Thus apart from monitoring the crucial issues of political stability and economic development of the region, the Central Asian countries should undertake issues related to strategic partnership to handle the rising tide of international monster.
(Author is Chandigarh-based Professor of Political Science and an expert on strategic affairs)
Writer: Sudhir Hindwan
Courtesy: The Pioneer
Of all the speeches, tweets and off-the-cuff remarks which together constitute President Donald J Trump’s articulation of the US’ global policy priorities and ideological positions (or lack thereof), there has never been one that defines his presidency more than his address to the United Nations in end-2017.
It was the most unambiguous speech by a world leader to the globe’s most ambiguous institution in recent history. In a sense, it was a rather effective exercise in showing the mirror to the UN. He started off by putting the cat firmly among the pigeons by reminding the gathering that President Harry S Truman was instrumental in establishing the UN as an organisation specifically for post-WW II nation-states to help build democratic institutions in their respective countries that would strengthen member-states’ sovereignty and help them serve their citizens better.
It was a timely intervention. After all, someone needed to juxtapose what was intended with what the UN has become — a sinecure for the elite of various nations which passes ineffective and often unimplementable resolutions, an illiberal club which has ended up bestowing legal rights to groups at the cost of the individual and an organisation that happily tolerates grotesque aberrations of a Libya or Sudan finding a place on its human rights council, for example.
Trump also laid out his doctrine for America’s place in the world which, over the past year and a bit since his speech, seems to have been broadly accepted by the American establishment though his style of doing things is, perfectly understandably, unacceptable to many, including the simpatico. But let us not confuse style with substance. This doctrine emphatically underlines the supremacy of the nation-state in global interaction and/or cooperation while championing sovereignty, security and prosperity for them individually.
Crucially, he was careful to emphasise the demonstration effect of robust, liberal, democracies even as he iterated that Washington was not in favour of imposing a way of life on others and was accepting of diversity in governance models across the globe which may not albeit be ideal. Where he was explicit was in calling out Iran/Yemen, as corrupt, despotic (Islamist) dictatorships and Cuba/Venezuela as corrupt, totalitarian (Socialist) dictatorships. He did, of course, take a swipe at Russia and China, without naming them, for their expansionist moves in the Ukraine and the South China Sea respectively as well. But there was a qualitative difference in the latter criticism, rooted as it was more in fighting both countries as global power competitors as opposed to the “bogus internationalism” of the so-called Islamist/Socialist countries which are ideologically committed to undermining the global order premised on nation-states or blocs thereof as the primary unit of interaction. (North Korea and Syria, also attacked by Trump, represent proxy threats for the US and are a discussion for elsewhere.)
His definition of such rogue nations as the “wicked few” and his exhortation to “decent nations not to become bystanders” were just sound and fury signifying American strategic interests, so they need not detain us here. But his frontal attack on bogus internationalism and exhortation to all UN member nation-states to put their country first just as he was putting America first provides India the opportunity it needs to recalibrate its own place in the world at a time of geo-strategic flux.
In calling for a renewal of the founding principle of the UN, which is its member-states’ sovereignty, focussing on outcomes not ideology and adhering to what may be termed principled realism, the US, if it continues down this path, has opened up space for India to attempt and secure its strategic interests in a substantial manner. To be facile, all we need is to replace Iran with Pakistan in the countries listed by Trump at the UN and we are good to go! The reality, of course, is more complicated than that; for example, Saudi Arabia should in an ideal world make it to any list of despotic Islamic regimes but it is neither in the US’ nor India’s interest to proffer such a suggestion. The situation, however, is not so complicated as to not provide New Delhi enough leverage to make space for itself at the high table, provided we keep our domestic internal security situation under control, economic growth robust and democratic institutions ticking over despite the odd setback or two. Especially, given Washington’s targeting as articulated by Trump in his UN speech of those nations which support and promote the aims of “Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Taliban and others”, the last-mentioned presumably keeping the door open for inclusion of terrorist tanzeems operating in the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir in this list.
Of course, in isolating pseudo-socialist totalitarian regimes and repressive Islamic theocracies — though that does not mean one doesn’t deal with them in one’s national interest even if with a pinched nose — Trump is focussed on US interests; the trick for New Delhi to pull off is to see how far our interests align with Washington’s given this once-in-a-generation opportunity. It is not only about meta-narratives but also the smaller issues on which there is an emerging convergence of views.
For example, Trump was emphatic in telling the UN that pressure by its refugee organisation on the US to allow refugees stateside was in effect dictatorial, chipped away at sovereignty and untenable. At the cost of resettling one refugee in the US, we can help 10 make a better life in their own countries, he said. New Delhi, grappling with similar pressure despite not having the economic wherewithal of the US in regard to, say, accommodating Rohingya refugees, should obviously take note. It is the citizens of low-income neighbouring countries who bear the cost both of refugees fleeing conflict and oppression or plain economic migrants.
US emphasis on result/outcome-orientated global actions, however, does require a fundamental reform of the United Nations itself. That is where the real opportunity for India lies if it can find common ground with the US. For example, given his transactional approach, President Trump has been quick to articulate the long-standing grouse of the American conservative establishment that the US’ contribution to the UN budget is 22 per cent of the total despite the US being just one of the UN’s 193 member-states. But he was quick to add even while encouraging other members to contribute more that the investment was worth it if peace and global order could be delivered. The disproportionate military/financial contribution of the US in terms of the influence it has on the world body is a sentiment India is in a good position to exploit if it is adroit in the steps it needs to take to secure its strategic objectives.
The US President’s paean to the nation-state and advocacy of independent, strong, prosperous countries guiding the UN as the best way to secure peace in our time as opposed to letting far-off, faceless bureaucracies such as the UN have the deciding say is in consonance with the approach of the Indian deep state. It’s better to have people taking ownership of their future rather than be led by a paternalistic global elite that in the name of seeking mutual bliss-points ignores the oppressive nature of the regimes that push this line.
(The writer is an independent journalist and commentator based in New Delhi.)
Writer: Ishan Joshi
Courtesy: The Pioneer
From an Indian perspective, Afghanistan turned out to be the flavour of the fourth edition of the Raisina Dialogue at New Delhi, which, compared to other international dialogues, is still in its infancy, given that it was flagged off as one of the three or four universal concerns/hot spots. The presence of the evergreen former President of Afghanistan Hamid Karzai, whose dislike for the US and Pakistan has visibly mellowed; Gen David Petraeus, the key proponent and leader of the US military surge in Afghanistan; Indian Army Chief Gen Bipin Rawat, who threw a bombshell with his advocacy of unconditional talks with the Taliban; and the Nangarhar native Pashtun, Zalmay Khalilzad, in his new role as the US’ points person on the reinvigorated peace process, threw up some interesting ideas. Incidentally, S Khalilzad, in his book, The Envoy: From Kabul to the White House, My Journey Through a Turbulent World, and various presentations had recommended the ‘Richard Armitage’ treatment of Taliban sanctuaries in Pakistan: Bombing them to the stone age.
For the transactional US President Donald Trump, cutting the US losses and exiting Afghanistan were pre-election promises, though he was persuaded by the likes of Gen Jim Mattis (now resigned over the issue) to stay the course. Trump’s sudden announcement to de-induct from Syria and reduce US troops in Afghanistan (later rescinded) last month is part of a cost-cutting and burden-sharing exercise. US troops are the most expensive — eight GIs for one jawan — to maintain in the world, given their tail of commodes to chewing gum. But it is also clear that even Trump will not walk out of Afghanistan, given the bilateral strategic security pact with Afghanistan, including the need for retention of bases at Bagram and Kandahar. Trump’s famous but short-lived Afghan policy enunciated in August 2017 is all but dead. From being the villain of the piece and part of the problem, Pakistan has bounced back to being the pivotal player in the peace process. After blaming Pakistan for destabilising Afghanistan, Trump was forced to seek Prime Minister Imran Khan’s help in taming the Taliban.
So where is the peace process? Khalilzad has been in the job for just five months. After three failed attempts to get the Taliban to talk to Kabul, he has returned to the drawing board. He must first convince Pakistan that peace and reconciliation in Afghanistan is in its national interest and pressing the Taliban for direct talks with Kabul is indispensable. It is understood that the option of coercion is still available and usable against Pakistan (so far unsuccessful) and against its beneficiary, the Taliban (so far unused). As Mattis failed in his coercive option, it is doubtful if Khalilzad can succeed. Still, Khalilzad has had three ‘good’ conversations with the Taliban; though they have steadfastly refused to talk to the Kabul delegation. The fourth round was postponed as the Taliban, at the behest of the Qataris, rejected Riyadh as the venue for the meeting. It will now happen as soon as Khalilzad is back from China, who, he hopes, will urge Pakistan to play the ball. Pakistan Army Chief Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa is understood to have told Khalilzad that “we want peace and trade with India as well as LoC as the de facto border.” And, of course, “peace in Afghanistan”.
Afghanistan’s National Security Advisor Hamdullah Mohib, who was in New Delhi just before Raisina, was sceptical about a positive outcome from talks with the Taliban. He said that the Taliban is not a monolithic organisation and is fractured down the middle. He feels an intra-Afghan dialogue, which has not been held, must be a precursor to talks with the Taliban. According to him, different groups from many factions in the Taliban have so far been sent for talks in Moscow, Abu Dhabi and Qatar. “We’ve had contacts with the Taliban, including proximity talks at Abu Dhabi”, he added. Karzai, too, endorsed Mohib’s views but emphasised the centrality of Pakistan, adding “whatever the deal with Pakistan, it should not undermine Afghan sovereignty.” “The Taliban are Pashtuns, our people, and they have to be engaged in power-sharing” said Karzai. Most countries are in contact with the Taliban. India, which is a legitimate stakeholder, must engage the Taliban because they are Afghans, noted Karzai.
The Russians and Iranians are also keen that India open lines with the Taliban who will eventually be part of the Government. But India has been unable to sidestep hesitations of history, which have made its position rigid; though it has shown some flexibility recently. It is willing to support the peace process provided the Taliban adheres to red lines: Renunciation of violence, abiding by the Constitution and ensuring the peace process is owned, led and controlled by Afghans.
On their part, the Taliban has indicated that it is prepared for power-sharing but without elections. It wants most of the East and North East of Afghanistan given to it on a platter. Its writ runs in almost half the country. This plan is similar to the one suggested by Robert Blackwill of dividing Afghanistan in the middle. The Taliban also wants changes to the Constitution.
Further, it has sought a deadline for the withdrawal of foreign forces, lifting ban on the movement of its leaders and sanctions imposed on some of them. Given the barbarity of the Taliban rule in Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001, which was recognised by the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, some of its leaders are liable to be charged with crimes against humanity.
Karzai admitted that the Taliban attempted to destroy Afghanistan, its culture, history, institutions and role of women in society while trying to impose Sharia’h law. But some Afghans say that the Taliban has mended its ways (doubtful) and 2019 is not 1996. They no longer destroy schools and prevent girls from going to school. Their biggest asset is control over large swathes of territory and retention of the capacity to execute multiple suicide attacks at will. In short, they enjoy on the ground the dominant position and advantage in balance of military power. This gives them a distinct edge in bargaining at the talks table.
It is the Americans who are in a hurry to withdraw, not the Taliban. They can outwait them indefinitely. Americans may have the watches but we have the time, this is what the Taliban has been saying for a long time. Trump would like to get most of his 14,000 soldiers back home before the next elections in 2020. Key questions, though, will remain: Who will guarantee the Taliban keeps its end of the bargain once foreign forces leave Afghanistan ? UN peacekeepers? A regional compact on non-interference as endorsed by SCO? Afghans reverting to neutrality? Or a grand bargain with Pakistan? Watch this space for answers.
(The writer is a retired Major General of the Indian Army and founder member of the Defence Planning Staff, currently the revamped Integrated Defence Staff)
Writer: Ashok K Mehta
Courtesy: The Pioneer
After its independence from Pakistan in a 1971 war, the influx of illegal immigrants from Bangladesh, spurred periodic public uprisings, ensuing in Assam Accord in 1985. If the new Bill fails to dispel fears among Assamese, it will reopen old wounds
The Lok Sabha passed the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill 2016 despite protest by the Opposition. Why this Bill has drawn so much controversy and opposition both from political parties and civil society groups within and outside North-East? The proposed Bill if passed in the Rajya Sabha will introduce an amendment in the original Citizenship Act of 1955. Once it becomes an act, it will make current illegal immigrants from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh belonging to the Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Jain, Parsi and Christian communities eligible for Indian citizenship after six years of residency instead of 11 years as stipulated mentioned in the Citizenship Act of 1955. This was done by the NDA Government after considering a 400-page Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) report that thoroughly studied the concerns of the locals after touring the entire State of Assam. However, the Government clarified that it will ensure protection of Clause 6 of the Assam Accord which categorically demands the constitutional safeguards of the Assamese people. The JPC report states that the State and the Central Government should formulate rules and regulations under Clause 6A of the Assam Accord to ensure that the very ethnic identity of the indigenous people is not threatened at any cost. The Opposition, including the Congress, highlighted that the NDA Government is trying to dilute Clause 5 of the Assam Accord which sets the cut-off date as March 24, 1971 to detect and deport foreigners. In the new Bill, the Government proposed the cut-off date as December 31, 1971 which will not be applicable to Bengali Hindu foreigners only. Further, it also says that considering these communities as persecuted ones, they will all be eligible for citizenship whoever has entered India till December 2014. This has actually opened a hornets’ nest across Assam and the North-East region. That’s why the call for total revision and recall of the Bill was echoed with much unhappiness as of date.
When the times and events demand, political leadership, irrespective of their different ideological shades, must see to it that the indigenous people do not have to lose their identity in Assam. Today, what Assam has witnessed is exemplified in the writings of Myron Weiner (1983), who said: “Among the most precarious political systems in the world are those that seek to hold together a society containing at least two ethnic groups, one of which has a bare or near majority…Some form of power sharing is usually necessary or at least an arrangement under which one group wields political power, but provides some degree of economic security to others.”
But such arrangements are temporary as it is affected by demographic changes both due to immigration and emigration, further accentuated by gradual population growth among different groups of people. This has eventually disrupted the political system of Assam leading to large-scale political violence and public unrest.
Instead of demonstrating grandiloquence, the leadership of the State BJP-led Government Sarbananda Sonowal should have convinced and conveyed the disastrous impact of such a legislation way ahead both to the Central leadership of the party and the Government. Schooled at the centre of regional politics and student activism, especially in the historic six-year long Assam Movement, Sonowal should have been well aware about the ethnocentric sentiment of the locals.
Now, as the Asom Gana Parisad (AGP) has moved out of the coalition in Assam, it does not help the BJP espouse the cause of regionalism intertwined with its pan-nationalist image. At last voters in Assam will have no “right choice” left. The AGP, the regional flag-bearer of Assam, is indirectly making difficult the BJP’s task to reach out to the indigenous communities. The outgoing AGP Ministers in the Sonowal Government came out in public saying that they will not continue as Ministers at the cost of the interests of the indigenous people of the State. Indeed, what the AGP leaders have done rightly serves the party’s future. Else, the party would have seriously damaged its electoral prospects and relevance in State politics that is deeply enmeshed with ethnic, cultural and linguistic identity.
What the Speaker of the Assam Assembly, Hitendranath Goswami, said after the Lok Sabha passed the controversial Bill highlights the tension in the State, “As a citizen, my conscience cannot support any Act which is unacceptable to the indigenous people of Assam and detrimental to the unity and fraternity of the people of Assam.” He reiterated that views of the “people” should be respected. Meanwhile, former MLA and AICC Secretary Rana Goswami has lambasted the Speaker by stating that he has failed to take side of the public and not taking any concrete steps to express his opposition to the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill.
These events bring another pertinent question to the people: Will there be a danger for the survival of the North East Democratic Alliance (NEDA), a pet project of the BJP to muster support from like-minded political parties and groups to annihilate the Congress in the North-East? It seems, the NEDA will have to rethink its strategy to keep its continued alliance with the BJP. It is very clear that the regional parties across the North-East will really find it difficult to support the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, though it directly affects Assam only.
At a time, when the AGP has withdrawn support to the Sonowal Government, the National People’s Party (NPP) Government, another constituent of the NEDA, led by Conrad Sangma in Meghalaya, has voiced his discontent over the Citizenship Bill. Even the NPP was the first party to raise the banner of protest against the Bill last year by passing a Cabinet decision. Sangma said it was one of the most aggressive manners in which their decision was conveyed to the Centre. What is shocking is that the lone BJP MLA in the Sangma Government, AL Hek, has stood united in its opposition to the Citizenship Bill. Equally concerned, he stated that he remains committed to protecting the interest of the indigenous people of the region. Apart from Meghalaya and Assam, rest of the States of the North-East such as Mizoram, Manipur, Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh and Tripura too are affected by Bangladeshi migrants over the years. Politically, this move by the Centre to bring an amendment to the Citizenship Bill might be a smart move so as to create a “new vote bank” around the persecuted minorities, particularly the “Hindu Bengalis” coming from Bangladesh.
But, it does not augur well for North-East. Assam has been peaceful for over a decade, at least from terrorist-infested violence. But this Bill has once again given opportunity to numerous organisations such as the All Assam Students Union (AASU) and North East Students Organisation (NESO) to mobilise people. Though Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh is repeatedly assuring the country that Assam will not have to take the sole burden of the migrants, it is difficult to stop the inflow as once migrants settle at one place, it becomes next to impossible to move them out to other places.
One may recall that the people of the North-East, particularly the Assamese, are chauvinistic, parochial or xenophobic. The incessant influx of migrants from then East Pakistan, and now Bangladesh, since India’s Independence has seriously altered the demographic profile of all the North-East States. This has largely affected the population pattern of Assam. What Weiner echoed in the hey days of the Assam Movement in 1983 still holds true for the locals: “Large scale migration of illegal migrants from Bangladesh into the North-Eastern Indian State of Assam has disrupted a fragile political framework. The Assamese middle classes feared the loss of political control when the Central Government ordered elections after there was a marked increase in the number of migrants on the electoral rolls, while Assamese and tribal cultivators reacted against land encroachments.”
This had led to the birth of the Assam Movement which raised an alarm against the Bangladeshi migrants across the State. This was a defining moment for the Assamese people as the leadership of the movement called for an all-out protest to expel the foreigners from Assam. More significant aspect was that it was considered as one of the largest student-led Movement of the world. And this evoked much interest and attention from all quarters starting from the Central Government, media, and public. Indeed, this was one of the factors that had changed Assam’s perspective on Centre-State relations in subsequent years. Academic dialogues and deliberations that shaped various narratives in the post-Assam Movement years marked the emergence of such concepts like stepmotherly treatment, centre-periphery and India acting against itself in regard to the State. For late Indira Gandhi-led Government at the Centre, the Assam Movement was simply a “deterioration of law and order problem”, but for Assamese people, it was a question of life and death. Assam saw violence for years. After the assassination of Indira, when Rajiv Gandhi took over, he signed the historic Assam Accord with the AASU leadership on August 15, 1985, which has the very sensitive clauses 5 and 6. And this Clause 6 has envisaged that appropriate constitutional, legislative and administrative safeguards shall be provided to protect, preserve and promote the cultural, social and linguistic identity and heritage of the Assamese people.
This Citizenship Bill has created chaos across Assam and North-East. Let’s wait and watch how the NDA Governments, particularly the Sonowal Government, pull through this crisis. It’s a testing time for both these Governments and for the indigenous peoples of Assam.
(The writer is an expert on international affairs, and an independent researcher on contemporary issues)
Writer: Makhan Saikia
Courtesy: The Pioneer
A senior member of a major Pakistani political party, Syed Ali Raza Abidi, was assassinated by unidentified people (Na maloom afraad) who fired at his car outside his Karachi residence on December 25. Apart from being a successful restaurateur, he was a former Member of the National Assembly (MNA), and an ex-leader of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM), which later broke into MQM-Pakistan.
In the 1980s, the MQM emerged as the political representative of the Mohajirs, those who migrated from India to Pakistan during Partition. As a Left-leaning party, it later dropped the word Mohajir from its name and changed it to Muttahida, to appeal to a wider base. But the party has constantly been in the crosshairs of Sindhi, Pashtun and Baloch populations as also the politicians in Karachi and Hyderabad — all of which are electoral catchment areas.
In 2017, Abidi had opposed the short-lived alliance between MQM-Pakistan and Pak Sarzameen Party (PSP) — both being splinter groups of the MQM. Moreover, removing the word MQM itself (embodying its history and legacy) had been a bone of contention among many loyal followers of the movement. (The ‘Pakistan murdabad’ slogan was taken as seditious by the Pakistani establishment and pressure ensued on all to distance themselves from MQM leader Altaf Hussain, who got banned from all media. Journalists, too, couldn’t use his name in their reportage.)
Abidi contested the general election this year from Karachi but suffered defeat at the hands of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf president and now Prime Minister, Imran Khan. In September, he resigned from MQM-Pakistan citing “personal reasons.” The Dawn reported that according to the Senior Superintendent Police, South Pir, Muhammad Shah, Abidi’s guard was not trained for the job entrusted to him.
“It’s hard to tell what the motive behind the attack is,” the SSP said. Further, “Whether it is a personal, political or religious issue, it is being investigated from all angles”, he said.
The MQM Coordination Committee (MQM-London) led by its convener Nadeem Ehsan and deputy convener, Qasim Ali Raza, saw red in this attack and called Abidi’s assassination a deep conspiracy by Pakistan’s military establishment to accelerate the genocidal crackdown in Karachi against the Mohajir/MQM movement. Meanwhile, Pakistan’s Information Minister, Fawwad Chaudhry, blamed Altaf Hussain to be behind the murder of Abidi. Wherever MQM is used without any qualifier, it means MQM-London, the Altaf loyalists’ group.
Nadeem Ehsan added that this was not just sheer speculation but the plot of the military establishment had already been exposed. On the one hand, the military establishment is intimidating many high-profile political and non-political personalities, on the other, they have been removing security cover for those under serious threats. Slain Abidi was one such fateful. In a statement, the MQM Coordination Committee said that though the slain Abidi had parted ways with the movement, he was very vocal and never hesitated in expressing his views while making statements. He feared none. Hence, the military establishment couldn’t bear him. His murder is a deep conspiracy and tragedy.
Suspicions of MQM-London might not be without any reason. To explain it, I would digress from the topic and delve into the background of the issue.
Since 1986, nearly 20,000 MQM workers have been arrested. In the 1990s, the brutal ‘Operation Clean-up’ was launched by former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif with an objective to “cleanse” Karachi city of “anti-social” elements. It circled around the controversy regarding Jinnahpur plan; MQM was accused of being anti-Pakistan and blamed for planning of a separate state, Jinnahpur.
Later, former President Pervez Musharraf normalised relations with the MQM. Crackdown against MQM began again in September 2013, as a part of the “minus three” formula (that has now been successfully implemented with all three — Nawaz Sharif, Asif Ali Zardari and Altaf Hussain — effectively sidelined from politics by Pakistan/the military establishment).
The successful implementation of the ‘minus three’ formula by the military establishment, coupled with a weaker Awami National Party (ANP) in Karachi paved the way for Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf’s (PTI) win in Karachi, including Imran Khan’s own seat. Following 2013, onwards crackdown had more than 130 enforced disappearances and 76 extra-judicial killings.
However, such efforts still could not crush MQM or Altaf Hussain, who remained beyond reach in London. The MQM workers were given a choice during this phase of the crackdown — to either go with the PSP or MQM — Pakistan or any other party. They were asked to distance themselves from Altaf. But this idea could not materialise. From time-to-time the shadow of Altaf propped up in the silhouette of his supporters, much to the chagrin of the establishment.
On December 9, which is observed as the Martyrs’ Day in remembrance of those who lost their lives in such a gory operation by Pakistan’s military establishment, a huge crowd turned out at Altaf’s call and pro-Altaf slogans were chanted. The crowd, that included women, were tear-gassed. They were, however, stopped from paying obeisance. All routes leading to the Jinnah Ground were blocked. Not a single individual was spared — thousands of Mohajir men, women and children were illegally arrested, tear-gassed, tortured and abducted.
The resident editor of The Nation in Karachi, Mansoor Khan, was also mistakenly arrested for he was passing by that area. Such was the indiscriminate nature of the arrests. Given the fact that many Mohajirs are staring at eviction from Government quarters in colonies, a huge crowd turned out in favour of Altaf. Citing a bad law and order situation, the establishment can use it as a ruse to bring in more forces into Karachi for a crackdown on them. Now, Karachi already has paramilitary rangers with a negligible number of Mohajirs in it, along with a horrible human rights’ record. It was probably this that Ehsan Nadeem hinted at. Only an impartial probe will make it clear so as to what actually transpired.
(The writer is an jndependent journalist working on cyber security and the geopolitics of India’s neighbourhood)
Writer: Aveek Sen
Courtesy: The Pioneer
Scuba-diving Santa brings holiday cheer to everyone
It’s a busy time for Santa Claus, but he’s making time to feed some fish in San Francisco. The California Academy of Sciences launched its holiday festivities Thursday by having a scuba diver dressed as St. Nick submerge into a coral reef exhibit while dozens of children watched from behind the glass. The “Scuba Santa” show runs through Christmas Day. It takes place during the morning feed at the Philippine Coral Reef tank at the San Francisco museum. Volunteer diver George Bell donned his Santa suit, from hat to coal black boots, and scuba gear for a recent feed and fielded visitors’ questions from inside the tank. The Philippine Coral Reef tank has thousands of reef fish representing about 100 species. People can watch Santa’s appearance online by webcam.
‘High-tech’ robot on TV was man in suit
Russian media say a contraption presented by Russian state television as a high-tech robot was in fact a man in a commercially available robot costume. The footage was shot at a high-tech show in the city of Yaroslavl that opened Tuesday, featuring “Boris the Robot.” Forum organizers used Boris to enliven the event, having him dance to a pop song.
But a crew for Russian state television apparently thought Boris was real, and used footage of him dancing and speaking as an example of Russian technological prowess. Online TJournal noted the lack of sensors, human-like movements and other discrepancies, and revealed that Boris was in fact a human clad in a costume sold under the name Alyosha by the Russian company Show Robots. (AP)
Worth the sting: Cuba’s scorpion pain remedy
Once a month for the last decade, Pepe Casanas, a 78-year-old Cuban farmer, has hunted down a scorpion to sting himself with, vowing that the venom wards off his rheumatism pains. His natural remedy is no longer seen as very unusual here.
Researchers in Cuba have found that the venom of the blue scorpion, whose scientific name is Rhopalurus junceus, endemic to the Caribbean island, appears to have anti-inflammatory and pain relief properties, and may be able to delay tumor growth in some cancer patients. While some oncologists abroad say more research is needed to be able to properly back up such a claim, Cuban pharmaceutical firm Labiofam has been using scorpion venom since 2011 to manufacture the homeopathic medicine Vidatox. The remedy has proven popular. Labiofam Business Director Carlos Alberto Delgado told Reuters sales were climbing 10 percent annually. Vidatox already sells in around 15 countries worldwide and is currently in talks with China to sell the remedy there. In Cuba, where tens of thousands of patients have been treated with Vidatox, each vial costs under a dollar. On the black market abroad it can cost hundred times that — retailers on Amazon.com are seen selling them for up to $140.
“I put the scorpion where I feel pain,” Casanas said while demonstrating his homemade pain relief with a scorpion that he found under a pile of debris on the patch of land he cultivates in Cuba’s western province of Pinar del Rio. After squeezing it long enough, it stung him and he winced. “It hurts for a while, but then it calms and goes and I don’t have any more pain,” he said. Casanas, a leathery-skinned former tobacco farmer who now primarily grows beans for his own consumption, said he sometimes keeps a scorpion under his straw hat like a lucky charm. It likes the shade and humidity, he says, so just curls up and sleeps.
(Reuters)
restaurant offering $500 gold brownie
A Los Angeles restaurant is taking dessert to new heights of decadence with a $500 brownie covered in 24-karat edible gold. Chef Jason Harley, owner of Baby J’s Burgers, said the opulent brownie is served in a humidor with a Monte Cristo cigar on the side.The brownie is coated in 24-karat gold and features glaze made with Johnnie Walker Blue Label scotch whisky. Harley previously made headlines in 2016 when his doughnut shop, Birdies, came out with a $100 doughnut similarly coated in edible gold.
(UPI)
Grinch on video driving through xmas display
An apparent Grinch was spotted on surveillance video plowing through a Christmas display outside a suburban Indianapolis home and tips are being sought to find the man. WRTV broadcast the video recorded Sunday night by a neighbor’s camera in Greenwood.
The video starts with a man getting out of a black SUV and then walking up to take a closer look at the front yard where Casie Arnold says her family had a 3.7-meter-tall inflatable snowman. The man gets back into the vehicle, backs up and drives through the family’s yard and over the decoration.
Arnold says they heard a pop while watching a Christmas movie. Tire tracks were in the yard. Arnold says she wonders if the driver was possibly a Grinch who doesn’t like Christmas.
Writer: Agencies
Courtesy: The Pioneer
Vladimir Putin is an archetypal political strongman who has always bent Russia to his will and wants the world to give in to it as well. Russian interference in the democratic process in the United States has plagued Donald Trump throughout his presidency and Russia has been alleged to have interfered in other elections such as the one in the United Kingdom that decided on Brexit as well as others. Russia’s military intervention in Syria has propped up the Bashar-al-Assad regime and cost countless lives and while the Western world shuns Saudi crown prince Mohammad bin-Salman, Putin considers him a friend. But strongmen have a soft underbelly of popular culture in their own nations that allows disparate voices. Singers, artists and even movie stars speak out using their celebrity status when others are cowed down, and in Russia those singers apparently challenging Putin are rappers. Like the artist Husky, who has been singing about the trouble that the man on the street faces, the high cost of living, rampant crime and political cronyism. So unsurprisingly, President Putin wants rap music to be ‘state guided’ that is, rappers can only perform at state-sanctioned events and avoid topics that might rile up the masses against their political overlords. This is a surprising turn of events even for Putin, who had invited a rap artist to perform at his inauguration. But while he projects strength abroad, he is worried about the influence of rappers among young Russians. Russia’s economy has been suffering thanks to decades-long Western sanctions that have slowed foreign investment into the country and the resultant inflations as well as persistent allegations of crony capitalism have done little to change perceptions despite his overwhelming win in the elections. But then again, Russian democracy is nowhere close to meeting the standards of the Western or even the Indian variety. That Putin allowed one of his daughters, Katerina Tikhonova, to appear on national television, almost certainly with his explicit approval, have some Kremlin observers suspecting that he is grooming her as his potential political heir. Was that the final trigger for the stronger rap lyrics amounting to protest and might explain the current crackdown? Possibly.
Of course, cracking down on popular culture of any sort is a reaction of almost every strongman. This has been a precedent since time immemorial. There was a similar crackdown in India during the Emergency imposed by Indira Gandhi. Before that, British colonialists cracked down on literature, pamphlets and plays. Writers and actors endured incarceration just as much as political leaders; they were just as important to the freedom struggle as politicians. By trying to bend rap music to his will, Putin might just drive it underground and while that might stifle Russian rap in the short-term, it will come back to bite him or his successor in the long-term
Writer and Courtesy: The Pioneer
The world is warming up and its climate is going totally out of whack. Extreme weather phenomena such as the Kerala floods earlier this year are wreaking havoc across the world, putting people in harm’s way and could even signal the end of days as many religious holy books predict. And here is the funny thing — we have known about humanity’s impact on the planet for decades now, we have physically seen the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers and huge chunks of ice the size of a small Indian state break away from the Antarctic ice shelf. Yet when it comes to doing something about them, the solutions we know about appear impossible to implement. So every few years global leaders and scientists sit down at a place to thrash out the details on how to redress the crisis.
But much like a heroin addict who finds it impossible to go cold turkey when the time comes to make tough choices, there is much hand-wringing. Here is a truism, humanity is addicted to carbon and those of us who can afford it love the good life. The use of air-conditioning, for example, the very nature of which increases the local temperature even more, cannot be begrudged by anyone who has seen a Delhi summer. Yet, as more and more Indians can afford cooling, the irony is that they are participating in the warming of the planet. Therein lies the rub. How do you and how can you deny the new middle-class in India their aspirations? Whether it is an energy-inefficient car compared to a motorcycle or new consumer durables such as a washing machine, do we say that this is not for you or do we embrace low-cost manufacturing and agree that everyone should have a level of equal access to modern conveniences?
So at Katowice, the hand-wringing continued. We know that we are in the midst of a crisis but the crisis hasn’t hit as yet, or rather it has in fits and starts. Sea level rises have not displaced millions till date but can politicians increase the taxes on petrol beyond a point even if they realise the carbon implications of burning more petrol and diesel? Can any politician or bureaucrat tell people that they should be judicious when they use their air-conditioning? We tried that in India and elite liberals saw that as government ‘interference.’ After all the rich, whether they are nations or rich citizens, do not want to pay the price of changing their habits. They would want air-conditioning and car ownership restricted but not for themselves. So the result at Katowice, where after 13 days of talking the only conclusion was that we should try and prevent global temperatures from rising beyond 1.5C by 2030, was far from ideal. By that time it may be too late to drive more change. The global impact of a warmer world will be felt by all of us, rich and poor alike although the latter will be harder hit. It is contingent upon politicians to understand that they need to educate their people about the impact of climate change. We might feel the impact of climate change in a sputtering manner right now but by 2030 it might be too late.
Writer: The pioneer
Source: The pioneer
Sri Lanka’s much disputed Prime Minister and strongman Mahinda Rajapaksa’s ill-advised move to manipulate the nation’s executive with impunity and suit his partisan and political ambition has clearly backfired and cost the nation a stasis it could hardly afford. With a crucial budget held up and countries wondering which government to deal with — the ousted one of UNP’s Ranil Wickremesinghe or the coalition sanctioned by President Mathiripala Sirisena with Rajapaksa as imposed Prime Minister — the island nation was on the precipice. Thankfully the Supreme Court ordered the reinstatement of status quo ante after Rajapaksa repeatedly failed to prove a majority in the Parliament, which President Sirisena dissolved to hold snap polls. The court sternly reminded that a nation cannot be held hostage to a person’s whim and muscle and that neither elections nor the dissolution of Parliament can be forced upon a system that already had a working majority and ability to last out a full term. The court underlined that the Constitution could not clearly be interpreted in personalised ways. Yes, Rajapaksa was clawing his way back to relevance after he was trounced by his one-time protege and then rebel Sirisena. But as Sirisena and Wickremesinghe had difficulty negotiating with each other along the way, Rajapaksa swiftly played on the heft of restoring Sinhalese identity, floated his new outfit and topped the verdict in the local elections. At this point, he clearly overreached himself, cornering President Sirisena in his impatience, forcing him to pull out of the coalition Unity government, coopt his party and name him Prime Minister. Now that Wickremesinghe has legitimacy and sympathy for being turfed out abruptly, Rajapaksa is left with ghosts of his past out to devour him — allegations of autocracy, corruption, nepotism, China tilts and, of course, war crimes while eliminating the Tamil movement from the face of the island. If indeed he had waited out for Wickremesinghe to fail at the hustings, he could have attempted a return to Lanka’s narrative and wiped off his past. Now, all anybody will remember is his avarice. Constitutionally, he could not have become the President, having served two terms, but he could have attempted a comeback as a prime ministerial hopeful though people anticipated he would move amendments to arrogate more powers to himself. Sirisena, seen as an acceptable moderate when he took over the reins, has had a greater loss of face. His UPFA was in a minority in the coalition (even with Rajapaksa’s faction) and yet he ventured to sack Wickremesinghe, whose UNP has the bigger mandate.
India can now breathe a tad easy as it was uncomfortable with Rajapaksa though the latter had engaged with the Modi government in Delhi very recently. As President, he had parcelled the nation’s ports and infrastructure to the Chinese. Wickremesinghe has been more favourable for us. His ouster, in fact, was a result of Sirisena’s disagreement with him over the development of a container terminal in Colombo and his pro-India tilt. Therefore, India has to tip-toe cautiously around the prevalent anti-mainland narrative and develop a strategic depth at a time when the hawks have been compromised.
Writer and Courtesy: The Pioneer
Not too long after the attack on the Chinese Consulate, Geng Shuang, the Foreign Ministry spokesman, claimed that Beijing would not hesitate in pursuing CPEC project and ‘Pakistan will ensure safety’.
The November 23 attack on the Chinese consulate in Karachi by Baloch separatists has brought to the global limelight the Baloch movement against the persecution by federal Pakistani authorities who have been depriving the region of its share of the province’s wealth and natural resources. Taking responsibility for the assault, the Balochistan Liberation Army has claimed it will continue fighting against the “Chinese occupation” spread through the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). The group had, on August 15, warned Chinese authorities against “exploitation of Balochistan’s mineral wealth and occupation of Baloch territory.” However, what surprises the global media is the intensity of the attack. Before this, Baloch separatists have been fighting a low-level insurgency in Pakistan for years.
The Baloch movement has a long history. After the Zia-ul-Haq regime when Pakistan moved to the democratic process, Baloch political dissidents tried to swim along the national political stream for almost fifteen years, albeit abortively. Now the Baloch people, particularly the new generation, are disenchanted with the false promise and betrayal by the federal authorities. As a result of increasing discontent, the idea of a free Balochistan has come out from its hibernation. This time, the demand for the Baloch nation has intensified.
On their part, the Pakistan Army and its intelligence agencies have strengthened its crackdown on Baloch separatists. Seen in this perspective is the claim of the Pakistani authorities that the disappeared Baloch are responsible for the attack on the Chinese Consulate. The counter-attack is two-pronged: The involuntarily disappeared Baloch who are either not found or their tortured bodies recovered from untrodden path have been declared convicts, and second, the accusation has shown the world the terror face of the separatists.
Since the start of the Baloch movement, the Pakistan authorities tried to nip the problem in the bud by kidnapping and killing Baloch separatists, who were declared missing of their own volition. The fact is that most of the missing persons are found dead and their mutilated bodies were recovered from across the region. Since 2006, the Pakistan Army and other law enforcement agencies in nexus with Islamic religious terrorist groups have ensured disappearance of thousands of Baloch political activists, social activists, students, journalists, lawyers, engineers, doctor and teachers. Mama Qadeer Baloch, the vice-president of The Voice for Baloch Missing Persons (VBMP), a Balochistan-based human rights organisation which has been pursuing the case of the missing Baloch since 2009, claims that more than 40,000 Balochs have gone missing, thanks to Pakistani law enforcement agencies. Over 10,000 have been “killed” and their bullet-ridden mutilated bodies dumped in disserted areas.
Mama Qadeer led a 3,000-km long historical march from Quetta to Islamabad via Karachi in the memory of the disappeared Baloch in 2013. However, the Pakistan Government remained nonchalant. Recently Akhter Mengal, the president of Balochistan National Party (BNP-Mengal), claimed that from July 25 to October 30 this year, 235 Baloch people went missing, and mutilated bodies of 45 people were recovered. This has happened after the Imran Khan-led PTI came to power at the Centre.
Accordingly the Bi-annual report 2018: The state of Balochistan’s Human Rights by Baloch Human Rights Organisation, 485 cases of enforced disappearances and 144 cases of extra-judicial killings were reported between January 2018 and June 2018. Similarly Human Rights Commission of Pakistan’s “THE BALOCH WHO IS NOT MISSING & OTHERS WHO ARE” report, published in 2013, came with a similar story: “The exact number of the involuntary disappearance of people is difficult to ascertain as many such cases are not reported to any Government and non-Government organisations. Some of the victim families do not have access to channel their protests, while others keep quiet out of the fear that publically airing their grievances could make the return of the missing persons difficult or impossible.”
In this regard Tullios Scovazzi and Gabriel Citroni remark that enforced disappearance is one of the most serious human rights violations. The right to safety, the right to protection under the law, the right not to be arbitrarily deprived of one’s liberty, and the right to be subjected to torture and to other cruel inhuman degrading treatments have taken a hit.
Further, Articles 1, 2 of the UN International Convention for The Protection of the All Persons from Enforced Disappearance respectively state, “No one shall be subjected to enforced disappearance and no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification for enforced disappearance; and enforced disappearance is considered to be arrest, detention, abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty by agents of the state or by persons and groups of persons acting with the authorisation, support and acquiescence of the state.”
Article 4 says, “Each state shall take necessary measures to ensure that enforced disappearance constitutes an offence under its criminal law.” Similarly Pakistan’s Constitution of 1973 Article 10(2) states, “Every person who is arrested and detained in the custody shall be produced before a magistrate within twenty-four hours, and shall not be denied the right to consult or be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice.”
However, the Pakistan military has been carrying out operations across Balochistan in order to crush the separatist organisations. Baloch political parties, Baloch National Movement (BNM) and Baloch Republican Party, have continuously blamed Pakistan forces for their involvement in human rights violations, such as enforced disappearances, burning of Baloch houses, looting livestock, and forcing them to flee their homes and live as internally displaced persons in Sindh and other parts of Balochistan. These political parties accuse the Pakistan Army of evicting hundreds from their houses in Baloch villages in order to bring its “exploitative” $62 billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor in the area.
Mohammad Hanif, renowned journalist of BBC Service and author of “Red Bird”, says it is painful that even journalists are grilled when they enter the territory of Balochistan; they are treated as aliens in their own country.
As growing fiscal crisis has put Pakistan in a fix on how it will repay Chinese loans granted as part of Beijing’s “Belt and Road” infrastructure initiative, Beijing is feeling emboldened to exert more pressure on Pakistan to pave path for its partner to exploit natural resources in Balochistan.
Soon after the attack on the Chinese Consulate, its Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang claimed that Beijing would not hesitate in pursuing CPEC project and “Pakistan will ensure safety”. The hint is clear: Pakistan must ensure the Bloch people keep on disappearing.
(The writer is a Baloch national movement activist)
Writer: Asgar Ali
Courtesy: The Pioneer
FREE Download
OPINION EXPRESS MAGAZINE
Offer of the Month