The US and Britain often express concern over the looming threat of war between two nuclear states - India and Pakistan. Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s statement that the solution of the Kashmir issue is vital for world stability is indeed encouraging. But he should take initiative and persuade international community to help resolve the dispute, as it is unfinished part of the partition of the subcontinent. President Obama has many a time expressed his desire that the dispute between India and Pakistan should be resolved but short of playing an active role in resolving the dispute. If the world powers including US and Britain take due interest in the matter and ensure implementation of the UN resolutions on this issue, the oppressed millions in Jammu and Kashmir would get their basic rights, and would also strengthen world peace and stability, as it is a major flashpoint in the world.
On 5th February 2010, British Labour Member of the Parliament Sir Gerald Kaufman in his address at Kashmir Solidarity Day seminar held in London had said that the issue of Kashmir will be on top of the agenda in his meeting with Prime Minister Gordon Brown, which was scheduled to be held after one week ie mid-February. But what transpired in the meeting is not known. He said that UK and US are concerned with the situation particularly for its bearings on stability and economy of Pakistan, which was essential for the peace of entire region. He asserted that UN resolutions on Kashmir remain valid and peaceful resolution of the issue was possible only through the implementation of these resolutions. Sir Gerald Kaufmann also shared his painful experiences of his visits to Kashmir where he was able to observe worst kind of violations of rights of people. He is perhaps the only British MP who believes that UN resolutions are still valid. Anyhow, after that he did not speak on the subject as to what transpired in his meeting with Prime Minister Gordon Brown. It has to be said that the Kashmir Dispute owes its origin to machinations of then governor general Lord Moutbatten, and it is the responsibility of Britain to help resolve this issue. In January 2010, addressing Indo-Pak Conference on ‘roadmap for peace’, Jammu and Kashmir Liberation leader Yasin Malik had said that he felt no decision would ever be taken to implement a road map for peace in the State. A 3-day conference organized by a consortium of Indian fora ended, which proved an exercise in futility. Participants were invited from Pakistan and Jammu and Kashmir in addition to participants from the host country and the conference was opened by former Indian premier IK Gujral. On second day of the conference ie January 11, the topic was “Issue of Autonomy: Kashmir and Balochistan”. The session was addressed by Asma Jehangir of Human Rights Commission of Pakistan and important personalities from Balochistan. One does not understand how members of Pakistani delegation had agreed to the topic, which bracketed Balochistan with Kashmir. Pakistani delegation should not have attended the conference for bracketing Balochistan with Kashmir, as the former is part of Pakistan whereas Kashmir is a disputed territory, which is pending in the United Nations. Britain is also in the picture that states in the subcontinent were allowed to join either India or Pakistan, and there was no concept of any independent state. Now Baloch sardars are peddling the idea that Balochistan was an independent entity in the plan for the partition of the subcontinent. In this backdrop, Britain should not allow leaders of the banned outfit Baloch Liberation Front to issue instructions to the insurgents in Balochistan. Prime Minister Gordon Brown should look into the matter and keeping in view excellent relations between Britain and Pakistan, he should take measures to get their headquarters of BLA closed. The long dormant crisis had erupted into a brutal confrontation with the center in 1973 when late Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto had tried to establish educational institutions and construction of roads in Balochistan. The insurgency had lasted for four years from 1973 to 1977, and it was after promulgation of Martial Law by Late General Zia-ul-Haq that sedition cases were withdrawn against Baloch sardars. It is unfortunate that neither Britain leadership nor the civil society in Pakistan consider it worthwhile to comment on what sardars have been doing to their people. No human right activist cries over the atrocities inflicted on them by their feudal lords and sardars in their private jails. It is too well known that RAW, CIA and Mossad are active in Balochistan and FATA to destabilize Pakistan, and Pakistani leadership – ruling and opposition parties - should work in unison to frustrate the designs of enemies of Pakistan. There is no denying that during British Raj and after independence Balochistan and NWFP were neglected so far as its development is concerned. But this is also true that despite being part of the provincial governments, sardars had neither done anything to develop Balochistan nor persuaded the central government to make development plans for their province. They consider all natural resources of Balochistan their personal property and want to pocket all the profits and royalties. From the statements and interviews of scions of Akbar Bugti, one can understand that the bone of contention between late Akbar Bugti and the federation arguably was that the latter wanted increase in gas royalty. As regards Mian Nawaz Sharif’s suggestion of holding talks with those who are not in Balochistan is intriguing and he is trying to draw political mileage from the contradictions between sardars and the government. He should have known that Brahamdagh Bugti is ensconced in Afghanistan near President Karzai’s palace and Mir Hybyar Marri is in London and both are reported to have the backing and support from enemies of Pakistan. It goes without saying that tribalism is firmly rooted in Balochistan, and ethnic and tribal identity is a potent force for both individuals and groups in Balochistan with the result that there exists deep polarization among different groups. Each of these groups is based on different rules of social organization, which has left the province inexorably fragmented. Tribal group-ism has failed to integrate the state and enforce a national identity. But those who have not weaned from the poison of sham nationalism should take a look at the history of the Balkans, and the fate they met. A couple of times Sardar Ataullah Mengal appeared in a television interview, and said that America does not pay any attention and would accept any outside help to disintegrate the country. Sardar Ataullah Mengal, Sardar Khair Bakhsh Marri and scions of late Akbar Bugti should try to safeguard the interests of Baloch people but through democratic struggle and not through violence and bloodshed. It is heartening to note that there is realization on the part of the central government as well as provinces; and in this regard Punjab and Sindh have sacrificed part of their share to Balochistan
On 5th February 2010, British Labour Member of the Parliament Sir Gerald Kaufman in his address at Kashmir Solidarity Day seminar held in London had said that the issue of Kashmir will be on top of the agenda in his meeting with Prime Minister Gordon Brown, which was scheduled to be held after one week ie mid-February. But what transpired in the meeting is not known. He said that UK and US are concerned with the situation particularly for its bearings on stability and economy of Pakistan, which was essential for the peace of entire region. He asserted that UN resolutions on Kashmir remain valid and peaceful resolution of the issue was possible only through the implementation of these resolutions. Sir Gerald Kaufmann also shared his painful experiences of his visits to Kashmir where he was able to observe worst kind of violations of rights of people. He is perhaps the only British MP who believes that UN resolutions are still valid. Anyhow, after that he did not speak on the subject as to what transpired in his meeting with Prime Minister Gordon Brown. It has to be said that the Kashmir Dispute owes its origin to machinations of then governor general Lord Moutbatten, and it is the responsibility of Britain to help resolve this issue. In January 2010, addressing Indo-Pak Conference on ‘roadmap for peace’, Jammu and Kashmir Liberation leader Yasin Malik had said that he felt no decision would ever be taken to implement a road map for peace in the State. A 3-day conference organized by a consortium of Indian fora ended, which proved an exercise in futility. Participants were invited from Pakistan and Jammu and Kashmir in addition to participants from the host country and the conference was opened by former Indian premier IK Gujral. On second day of the conference ie January 11, the topic was “Issue of Autonomy: Kashmir and Balochistan”. The session was addressed by Asma Jehangir of Human Rights Commission of Pakistan and important personalities from Balochistan. One does not understand how members of Pakistani delegation had agreed to the topic, which bracketed Balochistan with Kashmir. Pakistani delegation should not have attended the conference for bracketing Balochistan with Kashmir, as the former is part of Pakistan whereas Kashmir is a disputed territory, which is pending in the United Nations. Britain is also in the picture that states in the subcontinent were allowed to join either India or Pakistan, and there was no concept of any independent state. Now Baloch sardars are peddling the idea that Balochistan was an independent entity in the plan for the partition of the subcontinent. In this backdrop, Britain should not allow leaders of the banned outfit Baloch Liberation Front to issue instructions to the insurgents in Balochistan. Prime Minister Gordon Brown should look into the matter and keeping in view excellent relations between Britain and Pakistan, he should take measures to get their headquarters of BLA closed. The long dormant crisis had erupted into a brutal confrontation with the center in 1973 when late Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto had tried to establish educational institutions and construction of roads in Balochistan. The insurgency had lasted for four years from 1973 to 1977, and it was after promulgation of Martial Law by Late General Zia-ul-Haq that sedition cases were withdrawn against Baloch sardars. It is unfortunate that neither Britain leadership nor the civil society in Pakistan consider it worthwhile to comment on what sardars have been doing to their people. No human right activist cries over the atrocities inflicted on them by their feudal lords and sardars in their private jails. It is too well known that RAW, CIA and Mossad are active in Balochistan and FATA to destabilize Pakistan, and Pakistani leadership – ruling and opposition parties - should work in unison to frustrate the designs of enemies of Pakistan. There is no denying that during British Raj and after independence Balochistan and NWFP were neglected so far as its development is concerned. But this is also true that despite being part of the provincial governments, sardars had neither done anything to develop Balochistan nor persuaded the central government to make development plans for their province. They consider all natural resources of Balochistan their personal property and want to pocket all the profits and royalties. From the statements and interviews of scions of Akbar Bugti, one can understand that the bone of contention between late Akbar Bugti and the federation arguably was that the latter wanted increase in gas royalty. As regards Mian Nawaz Sharif’s suggestion of holding talks with those who are not in Balochistan is intriguing and he is trying to draw political mileage from the contradictions between sardars and the government. He should have known that Brahamdagh Bugti is ensconced in Afghanistan near President Karzai’s palace and Mir Hybyar Marri is in London and both are reported to have the backing and support from enemies of Pakistan. It goes without saying that tribalism is firmly rooted in Balochistan, and ethnic and tribal identity is a potent force for both individuals and groups in Balochistan with the result that there exists deep polarization among different groups. Each of these groups is based on different rules of social organization, which has left the province inexorably fragmented. Tribal group-ism has failed to integrate the state and enforce a national identity. But those who have not weaned from the poison of sham nationalism should take a look at the history of the Balkans, and the fate they met. A couple of times Sardar Ataullah Mengal appeared in a television interview, and said that America does not pay any attention and would accept any outside help to disintegrate the country. Sardar Ataullah Mengal, Sardar Khair Bakhsh Marri and scions of late Akbar Bugti should try to safeguard the interests of Baloch people but through democratic struggle and not through violence and bloodshed. It is heartening to note that there is realization on the part of the central government as well as provinces; and in this regard Punjab and Sindh have sacrificed part of their share to Balochistan
Comments
Post a Comment