Pakistan and South-Central Asia

Saiyan0321

Contributor
Moderator
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,209
Reactions
101 1,891
Nation of residence
Pakistan
Nation of origin
Pakistan

Pakistan calls on UNSC to designate RSS as ‘terrorist’​

Violent nationalist groups pose danger to regional and international peace and security, says Islamabad​


Pakistan has urged the UN Security Council to designate "violent nationalist groups" including India's hardline Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) as proscribed outfits like other militant groups.

Pakistan's Ambassador to the UN, Munir Akram, laid out an "action plan" before the 15-member Security Council to tackle nationalist groups including the RSS, which is believed to be the parent group of India's ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the state-run Associated Press of Pakistan reported Wednesday.

According to Akram, these groups, including the RSS "pose a clear danger to regional and international peace and security."

“Such violent racist and extremist terrorism will inevitably breed counter-violence and validate the dystopian narrative of terrorist organizations such as ISIS/Daesh and Al-Qaeda," Akram was quoted as saying.

Calling for "immediate" steps to curb the rise of violent nationalism, he proposed to the UN and its member states to initiate domestic actions to prevent the propagation of the violent ideologies, recruitment to and financing of these groups.

He urged the UN Secretary-General to present a "plan of action" to confront and defeat the extremist ideologies and actions of these groups.

Citing the scrapping of the longstanding semi-autonomous status of disputed Jammu and Kashmir in August 2019 and the introduction of controversial citizenship laws by the Indian government, the Pakistani envoy said the world needs to "expand and adjust its counter-terror strategy to "defeat terrorism in all forms and manifestations.”

 

Saiyan0321

Contributor
Moderator
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,209
Reactions
101 1,891
Nation of residence
Pakistan
Nation of origin
Pakistan

SMOKERS’ CORNER: IS IMRAN KHAN A POPULIST?

In a March 7, 2010 essay for the New York Times, the American linguist and author Ben Zimmer writes, “When politicians fret about the public perception of a decision more than the substance of the decision itself, we’re living in a world of optics.”

On the other hand, according to Deborah Johnson in the June 2017 issue of Attorney at Law, a politician may have the best interests of his constituents in mind, but he or she doesn’t come across smoothly because optics are bad, even though the substance is good. Johnson writes that things have increasingly slid from substance to optics.

Optics in this context have always played a prominent role in politics. Yet, it is also true that their usage has grown manifold with the proliferation of electronic and social media, and, especially, of ‘populism.’ Populists often travel with personal photographers so that they can be snapped and proliferate images that are positively relevant to their core audience.

Pakistan’s PM Imran Khan relies heavily on such optics. He is also considered to be a populist. But then why did he so stubbornly refuse to meet the mourning families of the 11 Hazara Shia miners who were brutally murdered in Quetta? Instead, the optics space in this case was filled by opposition leaders, Maryam Nawaz and Bilawal Bhutto.
Nevertheless, this piece is not about why an optics-obsessed PM such as Khan didn’t immediately occupy the space that was eventually filled by his opponents. It is more about exploring whether Khan really is a populist? For this we will have to first figure out what populism is.

According to the American sociologist, Bart Bonikowski, in the 2019 anthology When Democracy Trumps Populism, populism poses to be ‘anti-establishment’ and ‘anti-elite.’ It can emerge from the right as well as the left, but during its most recent rise in the last decade, it has mostly come up from the right.

The current prime minister is not very different from his populist contemporaries in other developing countries
According to Bonikowski, populism of the right has stark ethnic or religious nationalist tendencies. It draws and popularises a certain paradigm of ‘authentic’ racial or religious nationalism and claims that those who do not have the required features to fit in this paradigm are outsiders and, therefore, a threat to the ‘national body.’ It also lashes out against established political forces and state institutions for being ‘elitist,’ ‘corrupt’ and facilitators of pluralism that is usurping the interests of the authentic members of the national body in a bid to undermine the ‘silent majority.’ Populism aspires to represent this silent majority, claiming to empower it.

Simply put, all this, in varying degrees, is at the core of populist regimes that, in the last decade or so, began to take shape in various countries — especially in the US, UK, India, Brazil, Turkey, Philippines, Hungary, Poland, Russia, Czech Republic and Pakistan. Yet, if anti-establishmentarian action and rhetoric is a prominent feature of populism, then what about populist regimes that are not only close to certain powerful state institutions, but were or are actually propped up by them? Opposition parties in Pakistan insist that Imran Khan’s party is propped up by the country’s military establishment, which is aiding it to remain afloat despite it failing on many fronts. The same is the case with the populist regime in Brazil.

Does this mean such regimes are not really populist? No. According to the economist Pranab Bardhan (University of California, Berkeley), even though populists share many similarities, populism’s shape can shift from region to region. Bardhan writes that characteristics of populism are qualitatively different in developed countries from those in developing countries. For example, whereas globalisation is seen in a negative light by populists in Europe and the US, a November 2016 survey published in The Economist shows that the people of 18 developing countries saw it positively, believing it gave their countries’ economies the opportunity to assert themselves.

Secondly, according to Bardhan, survey evidence suggests that much of the support for populist politics in developed countries is coming from less-educated, blue-collar workers, and from the rural backwaters. Populists in developing countries, by contrast, are deriving support mainly from the rising middle classes and the aspirational youth in urban areas. To Bardhan, in India, Pakistan, Turkey, Poland and Russia, symbols of ‘illiberal religious resurgence’ have been used by populist leaders to energise the upwardly-mobile or arriviste social groups.

He also writes that, in developed countries, populism is at loggerheads with the centralising state and political institutions, because it sees them as elitist, detached and a threat to local communities. But in developing countries, the populists have tried to centralise power and weaken local communities. To populists in developing countries, the main villains are not the so-called cold and detached state institutions, but ‘corrupt’ civilian parties. Ironically, while populism in the US is against welfare programmes, such programmes remain important to populists in developing countries.

Keeping this in mind, one can conclude that PM Khan is a populist, quite like his populist contemporaries in other developing countries. Despite nationalist rhetoric and his condemnatory understanding of colonialism, globalisation that promises foreign investment in the country is welcomed. His main base of support remains aspirational and upwardly-mobile urban middle-class segments. He often uses religious symbology and exhibitions of piety to energise this segment, providing religious context to what are actually Western ideas of state, governance, economics and nationalism. For example, the Scandinavian idea of the welfare state that he admires is defined as Riyasat-i-Madina (State of Madina).

Unlike populism in Europe and the US, populism in developing countries embraces the ‘establishment’ and, instead, turns its guns towards established political parties which it describes as being ‘corrupt.’ Khan is no different. He admires the Chinese system of central planning and economy and dreams of a centralised system that would seamlessly merge the military, the bureaucracy and his government into a single ruling whole. His urban middle-class supporters often applaud this ‘vision.’

Published in Dawn, EOS, January 17th, 2021

 

Saiyan0321

Contributor
Moderator
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,209
Reactions
101 1,891
Nation of residence
Pakistan
Nation of origin
Pakistan

Fencing the western border​


By the 1880s, the Russians had advanced to Central Asia and occupied cities like Bokhara, Samarkand as well as Khiva and were threatening Pamir and Afghanistan. The British were desperate to make sure that their border was clear so that the Russians could not sneak into British India. As such, they decided to demarcate a border between British India and Afghanistan. The border agreement was signed between Mortimer Durand, Foreign Secretary of British India, and Amir Abdur Rehman of Afghanistan on November 12, 1893. On the conclusion of the treaty, Amir called a gathering of the elders and some government officials. There, he described the agreement as a landmark achievement.




The demarcated border was also reaffirmed in subsequent pacts and treaties. During the partition, 99 percent of the Pashtoons voted to join Pakistan in a referendum held in July 1947. In his book, The Frontiers of Pakistan, Mujtaba Rizvi has mentioned that Afghanistan’s first ambassador to Pakistan, Marshal Shah Wali Khan, the uncle of King Zahir Shah, reiterated that Afghanistan has no claims on the frontier territory and if there were any, they have been given up in favour of Pakistan. The UNSC Resolution on Afghanistan reaffirms the legal recognition of the Durand Line as an international border.

Pakistan shares a 2611 kilometer long border with Afghanistan, 1268 kilometers in Balochistan, 1229 kilometers in KP and 114 kilometers in Gilgit-Baltistan. There are two proper crossings at Torkham and Chaman, besides hundreds of frequented and unfrequented routes. The porous nature of the border enabled terrorists to move freely between countries. After 9/11, when the US invaded Afghanistan, most of the militants crossed over to FATA and initiated terrorist activities all across Pakistan. The Indian influence in Afghanistan expanded after the fall of the Taliban and they started using Afghan soil to sponsor terrorist activities inside of Pakistan. India is fueling insurgency in Balochistan and other terrorist activities across Pakistan are actively supported by its consulates in Kandahar and Jalalabad.




With the start of CPEC, India has stepped up its terrorist activities through its proxies—BLA, BLF BRA, TTP, Daesh and JuH as well as through its consulates training, arming and funding terrorists against Pakistan. The arrest of Kulbhushan from Balochistan proves Indian involvement in the region and in the killing of Shia Hazara, according to the confessions obtained by authorities. Former US Secretary of Defence, Chuck Hagel, went on the record to say, “India has, over the years, been financing terrorism in Pakistan from across the border”. He further said, “It is using Afghanistan as a second front against Pakistan”.
The Peshawar APS school massacre mastermind was in contact with an Indian consulate during the attack. Similarly, the suicide attack against a Baloch leader, Siraj Raisani, in Mastung was being controlled from Spin Boldak. Furthermore, the attacker of Bacha Khan University in Charsadda entered Peshawar from Torkham. The Pakistan government strengthened its border control system since the 2016 APS Peshawar attack and a proper system has now been put in place at Torkham. Travellers without a visa are no longer allowed to cross the border in either direction. A similar system is going to be practiced at the Chaman crossing in the near future.




It was in 2001 when General Pervez Musharraf decided to fence the western border to check and stop unauthorised border crossings. The fencing started in 2007 and after the completion of 35 kilometers, the project was abandoned because of border clashes and external pressure. The present Army Chief, General Bajwa, was determined to fence the border once and for all in May 2018. A project worth 532 million dollars was initiated and it included the construction of border outposts and employment of high-tech surveillance systems. The fence was made with double wire trellis, each 10 feet high with a 6 feet gap and is topped with razor wire. The Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) described the fencing of the western border as the ‘Bajwa Fence’ and linked it with the ‘Bajwa Doctrine’—a vision General Bajwa promoted domestically and internationally.83 percent of the western border has been fenced and according to DG ISPR, the remaining work will be completed by end of the year. He further added that 482 out of 1068 planned forts have also been constructed along the border. Pakistan has also completed a 1100-kilometer-long trench, which is 3 meter in depth and 3 to 4 meter wide, along the western borders in Balochistan. This fence brings advantages to both Pakistan and Afghanistan. Firstly, it will prevent an influx of terrorists moving from Afghanistan to Pakistan. In the past, Afghanistan was asked several times to eradicate sanctuaries for terrorists. Secondly, the fence will also control cross border smuggling, especially of drugs as 93 percent of the world’s opium is produced in Afghanistan and 40 percent of Afghan poppy products pass through Pakistan. Thirdly, it will also control illegal entry into Pakistan. After the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Pakistan absorbed over five million Afghan refugees. Today, there are 1.4 million registered Afghan refugees besides the 0.9 million Afghan Citizen Card holders who were documented in 2017. Fourthly, it will also address the belief that Pakistan has not done enough to secure the borders. Fifthly, it will also address the Afghan government’s concerns and also the so-called accusation that the Afghan Taliban use Pakistani soil for attacks inside Afghanistan itself. Sixthly, it would not divide families as proper crossing points have been planned.

The Durand Line constitutes as a legal border under international law and Pakistan is lawfully fencing its border as done by the USA along its border with Mexico. If old and historical agreements between states are not honoured, then the international order will collapse. The Arabs speak the same language, share the same culture and origin but are divided into 22 sovereign states. Pakistan has taken the right decision to fence its border with Afghanistan as it will ensure national security, sovereignty and economic development. The fence will put a final end to all border crossings and accusations.

 

Saiyan0321

Contributor
Moderator
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,209
Reactions
101 1,891
Nation of residence
Pakistan
Nation of origin
Pakistan

UN chief urges Pakistan, India to ‘seriously discuss problems’

UNITED NATIONS: UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has urged Pakistan and India to “come together and seriously discuss their problems”, reminding the two nuclear-armed countries that any military confrontation between them would be “a disaster of unmitigated proportions”.

At his first news briefing of 2021 in New York on Thursday, the UN chief also emphasised the need to “fully respect” human rights in the India-occupied regions of Jammu and Kashmir.

“Now, things have not moved in the right direction. Our good offices are always available, and we will insist within it on finding peaceful solutions for problems that have no military solution,” Mr Guterres said.

“It is clear, when seeing Pakistan and India, any military confrontation between the two would be a disaster of unmitigated proportions for both countries and for the whole world,” he warned.


Mr Guterres was responding to a question by a correspondent of the APP news agency on tensions between India and Pakistan over the situation in occupied Kashmir. The question also referred to Mr Guterres’ August 2019 statement, which called for a resolution of the Kashmir dispute in accordance with relevant UN resolutions and the UN charter.

In a statement, he says the final status of Jammu and Kashmir is to be settled by peaceful means, in accordance with the UN Charter
Tensions between Pakistan and India have been high since August 2019 when India illegally merged the occupied territory with the union.

Pakistan responded by downgrading its diplomatic relations with India and expelled the Indian high commissioner. India, however, continues to insist that the merger is its “internal matter”.

It was also pointed out at the briefing that since August 2019, tensions in the region have been at an all-time high. And India has been committing serious human rights abuses in the occupied lands while violations of the Line of Control (LoC) in Kashmir have also continued.

“Well, what I said in the statement you mentioned is, unfortunately, the same that I can say today. I mean, I do believe that it is absolutely essential to have a de-escalation of the situation, namely in the Line of [Control],” said the UN chief while reviewing the situation in the disputed region.

“I think it’s absolutely essential for the two countries to be able to come together and seriously discuss their problems, and I think it’s essential that human rights are fully respected in all territories that you mentioned,” he said.

The international media, while reporting the secretary-general’s statement, noted that this was not the first time he had insisted on a resolution to the dispute based on the UN Charter and resolutions. He stressed the same during his four-day visit to Pakistan last year to attend an international conference on Afghan refugees.

“We have taken a position about the need for Security Council’s resolutions to be implemented for effective de-escalation. Another important aspect, which needs full respect of human rights and continental freedom in Jammu & Kashmir, is that people should have free movement as [they have] in Pakistan’s side,” Mr Guterres said in a previous statement.

He hoped that “this (free movement) will also be achieved on the other side (India). I have offered my good offices in relation to the situation and our position is that the Security Council’s resolutions be implemented.”

In a reference to India’s revocation of Article 370 and ending occupied Kashmir’s special status, Mr Guterres urged India “to refrain from taking steps that could affect the status of Jammu and Kashmir”.

In another statement, he said that the UN position on this region was “governed by the Charter of the UN and applicable Security Council resolutions [...] The final status of Jammu and Kashmir is to be settled by peaceful means, in accordance with the Charter of the UN.”

Published in Dawn, January 30th, 2021

 

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom