The UFO base in Aksai Chin

The UFO base in Aksai Chin

India Daily Technology Team

It is now clear that multiple UFO bases exist in Aksai Chin, the Chinese controlled part of Kashmir. The bases extend from India’s Ladack to China’s Aksai Chin.

When the Sun is about rise in the 14,000 ft elevation, Kashmir’s remotest part where the earth’s crust is thick due to fold mountains of Himalayas, the UFOs cluster in formation and come out from their underground bases. For a long time Indian military thought these were Chinese Air Force Advanced reconnaissance vehicles of odd shapes and sizes. Now it is clear that even Chinese authorities are surprised with the number of

UFOs

that are coming out from underground these days.

Aksai Chin is a no man’s land whre neither Chinese nor the Indian authorities exert their influence. The local know about these UFOs and they also know not to disturb these ”higher order Gods from Heavens.”

The UFOs come out and disappear in the middle of gravity wave modulations. They propagate with electromagnetic flux. They navigate with gravity wave shield. Their armor is made of time encapsulated zero point energy modules.

Aksai Chin is largely a vast high-altitude desert including some salt lakes from 4,800 metres (15,700 ft) to 5,500 metres (18,000 ft) above sea level. It covers an area of 37,250 square kilometres (14,380 sq mi).

The main UFO base is in Soda Plain and uses Aksai Chin’s largest river, the Karakosh. The region is almost uninhabited, has no permanent settlements, and receives little precipitation as the Himalayas and the Karakoram block the rains from the Indian monsoon. It is perfect for underground UFO base formation.

The maximum UFO cluster formations happen in Aksai Chin Lake area. The radioactivity in the lake is surprisingly above normal in early hours of the day.

Hotan County in the Hotan Prefecture in Xinjiang of China administers Aksai Chin. The administrators knowingly avoid questions on Aksai Chin underground UFO bases.

China National Highway 219 runs through Aksai Chin connecting Lazi and Xinjiang in the Tibet Autonomous Region. Recently people treveling in the highway have reported many UFO citing from the area.

The satellite imagery on the Google Earth service revealed a terrain model of eastern Aksai Chin and adjacent Tibet, built near the town of Huangyangtan, about 35 kilometres (22 mi) southwest of Yinchuan, the capital of the autonomous region of Ningxia in China. The satellite imagery also reveals strange spots in the deep terrains. Many believe these strange deep spots were previous underground UFO bases.

Indian Daily

PoK leaders want merger with India

PoK leaders want merger with India
By d-sector Team

Fast changing geo-political equations have made India extend its helping hand to political groups in PoK who have now been openly seeking New Delhi’s help in their struggle for survival and freedom.

While all and sundry in India are criticising Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for bringing Balochistan on to the agenda of Indo-Pak bi-lateral talks, an international seminar organised in New Delhi has once again brought to the fore the approach-avoidance conflict India faces in dealing with the expectations of disenchanted communities from Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) and frontier regions.

Till recently India did not want to be seen as meddling in Pakistan’s internal affairs, but several political groups in PoK have now been openly seeking New Delhi’s help in their struggle for freedom, dignity and human rights, and now it seems New Delhi is willing to extend a helping hand to the distressed Karakoram communities. India now claims “legitimate interest in territories and peoples that are part of India but under illegal occupation, both to the west as well as to the east”.

These groups say that since India continues to consider the whole of Kashmir, including PoK, as its own territory, it is its duty to protect the local communities against Pakistan, a foreign aggressor for them.

Some of these political leaders and intellectuals from areas around Gilgit and Baltistan in PoK, referred to as Northern Areas by Pakistan, travelled to New Delhi to participate in the seminar on ‘Society, Culture and Politics in the Karakoram Himalayas’. The seminar was dominated by tales of discrimination and persecution of the local people in these areas by Pakistan’s civilian and military establishment.

“I am surprised that India has no concern about what is happening in Gilgit and Baltistan. Pakistan has been openly supporting and encouraging militants in Indian Kashmir and New Delhi doesn’t even want to keep contact with areas that are officially still a part of its own territory,” said Abdul Hamid Khan, chairman of Balawaristan National Front, a political party whose objective is to gain independence from Pakistan. Northern Areas are historically known as Balawaristan.

Khan, like most other political leaders from the region, lives in exile in Europe. He said the Indian position was even more surprising considering the fact that most political formations in the area were now open to a merger with India.

“Even an independent Balawaristan is in larger interest of India as it would not support terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir,” he said.

Shaukat Kashmiri, leader of the United Kashmir National People’s Party, one of the largest political formations in the region, also spoke about a reunification with India. Kashmiri, who is chased by the ISI, has been operating out of Switzerland for the past few years.

Though the leaders from PoK complained about the indifference India shows to their concerns, few former diplomats, army officials and intellectuals of India actively participated in the seminar.

Prime Minister’s Special Envoy on Climate Change Shyam Saran made the inaugural address, in which he said, “The destinies of the Karakoram communities and the vision of India as a successful and inclusive plurality are in a sense, linked more than symbolically. We have a duty to be engaged more actively in the survival and I would venture to say, revival of these challenged communities.”

Evidently India is reaching out to the communities in the Karakoram areas – stretching from Swat, Buner, Waziristan, Balochistan and Xinjiang to Gilgit, Hunza and Baltistan in the Northern Areas to Jammu & Kashmir. Significantly, most of these areas lie within the territory of the erstwhile Jammu & Kashmir state.

India’s effort in getting together leaders from these regions is significant considering the rising unrest in several parts of Pakistan’s frontier regions as a result of the stresses of extremism and terrorism. For the first time, India is appealing to these indigenous mountain cultures, regardless of their religion, to bond as communities, rather than as parts of countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan and China.

“It is our collective responsibility to preserve and to promote this varied culture, created by people who have a long history, settled existence and outstanding contributions to civilisation. India feels very much a part of this civilisational network which has enriched its own culture,” Saran said.

“In its interaction with Pakistan on Jammu & Kashmir, India has always insisted that all cross-LoC links and potential projects for cooperation in specific areas must cover the entire erstwhile state of Jammu & Kashmir, including Gilgit and Baltistan. Any consultative mechanism across the LoC must be between self-governing and representative entities and that, too, includes Gilgit and Baltistan,” he added.

–

Plight of the people of Gilgit Baltistan

Plight of the people of Gilgit Baltistan

 Constitutional, political and socio-economic deprivation, miseries and plight of the people of Gilgit Baltistan Northern part of Kashmir’ Speech delivered by Sardar Shaukat Ali Kashmiri on April, 2008 in European- Parliament Respected Baroness Emma Nicholson, Member European Parliament, Vice Chair Foreign Affairs Committee and Vice Chair sub- committee on Human Rights in the European Parliament, architect of first European Parliament resolution on Jammu Kashmir. Madam Chairperson, Chair IKA Dr Nazir Gillani Sahib, Mumtaz Khan, Vice Chair IKA, Dr Shabir Chaudhry, Abbas Butt Abdul Hamid Khan Chairman BNF, dear journalists, ladies and gentlemen. I would warmly welcome you in this august conference and taking this opportunity to bring you constitutional, political and socio-economic deprivation, miseries and plight of the people of Gilgit Baltistan Northern part of Kashmir. People of Pakistani Administered Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan have special respect and honor for you Madam Chairperson. Dear Delegates, Before going into the historical perspective of Gilgit Baltistan I would like to present my views on Jammu Kashmir and its political, constitutional, socio-economic, cultural, educational, religious, and lingual history and its long history of relations with Northern Part Gilgit Baltistan. Jammu Kashmir is north western region of the Indian sub-continent. Until the mid 20th century, the term “Kashmir “referred to the Valley lying between the great Himalaya and the Pir Panjal range; since then, it has been used for a larger area that today includes Jammu Kashmir consisting of Kashmir valley, Jammu, Ladakh, Pakistani Administered Kashmir, Gilgit, Baltistan Chinese administered region of Aksai Chin. The oldest account of Kashmir history is Rajtirangni of Kalhana which was written in 1147-1149 CE.Though Kashmir has long history of foreign occupation but it’s important feature is that the prominent Chak ruler of Kashmir and Ali Sher Khan Anchan who is known as Ranchan Shah in Kashmir was belonging to the Gilgit region that proves that the Gilgit Baltistan region had a strong influence in Kashmir political affairs in the past. Under the paramountcy of the British crown that lasted until 1947 when the former princely state became disputed territory between its neighbors India, Pakistan and China. The total area of the state is 84471 Sq Miles and 12million population bigger than many independent nations in terms of population and area particularly five European countries, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, Austria, Switzerland together. At this point I would say that the founding father of this state was Maharajah Gulab Singh despite our differences with treaty of Amritsar of 1846. I would also pay tribute to the loyalty and patriotism of Maharajah Hari Singh and I would say that If Maharajah Hari Singh had not enacted the law of “State Subject Rule” of 1927 Kashmiri people under different administrations and political systems would have been turned as minority particularly those who live under illegal administration of Pakistan since 1947. Respected Delegates, At this moment when different lobbies are trying to distort the facts and misleading world community I would like to put forward my submissions so that historical misconception can be clearly understood. * It is evident that India came into Kashmir through a treaty of accession while Pakistan infiltrated it’s tribal in Jammu Kashmir and illegally occupied about 36000Sq Miles of State. * Under UNCIP resolutions Government of Pakistan failed to comply with the UNCIP resolutions as UNCIP resolutions clearly asked Pakistan to withdrawal all its armed and para-military forces and civilians simultaneously from state and India was to withdraw bulk of its forces after that. * Therefore, unless Government of Pakistan fulfills the UNCIP resolutions condition, asking India to revisit the treaty of accession and seek the opinion of Kashmiris on the treaty. But it is the duty of Indian government to protect the life, liberty, property and dignity of the Kashmiri unless final solution is sought. While on the other hand government of Pakistan has denied the fundamental rights and freedoms of people of Gilgit Baltistan. We call Karachi agreement as conspiracy against the identity and unity of Kashmiris by the Pakistani authorities and reject it for following various reasons. 1- At the time of Karachi Agreement on 28th April-1949 there was no representative of that region. 2- The people of Gilgit Baltistan are kept deprived, politically, constitutionally and forced to live unprivileged and underdeveloped since 1949. 3- No legislature was formed for the people of these areas. 4- There are no notable institutions like healthcare and hospital except Agha Khan Rural Support Program (AKRSP). 5- As Karachi agreement was clearly infringe to the autonomy and fun political, democratic, and cultural and human rights of the people of the region. Through Karachi agreement Pakistani authorities have assumed extraordinary powers and region became sole domain to ministry of Kashmir Affairs and Northern Areas (KANA) 6- Muslim Conference and its leadership had no democratically legitimate mandate for the people of Gilgit Baltistan to sign such agreement on their behalf with Government of Pakistan. It is irony that Government of Pakistan takes a very different route to govern the affairs of Gilgit Baltistan unlike in Pakistani Administered Kashmir which consist of 4000Sq Miles was given a nominal institutions like Legislative Assembly, President, Prime Minister, Supreme Court, National Flag and National Anthem, but Gilgit Baltistan which is 28000 Sq Miles was put under the mercy of a low rank officer in Ministry of Kashmir Affairs and Northern Areas. The population of Gilgit Baltistan consists of many diverse linguistic, ethnic and religious groups’ isolated valleys separated by some of the world’s highest mountains. Urdu is the lingua franca of the region, understood by most male inhabitants. The Shina language (with several dialects) is the language of 40% of the population, spoken mainly in Gilgit, throughout Diamer, and some parts of Ghizer. The Balti language, a sub-dialect of Ladakhi is spoken by the entire population of Baltistan. Minor languages spoken in the area include Wakhi spoken in upper Hunza, and some villages in Ghizer, while Khowar is the major language of Ghizer. Burushaski is an isolated language spoken in Hunza, Nagar, Yasin (where Khowar is also spoken), Some parts of Gilgit and some villages of Punyal. Another interesting language is Domaaki, spoken by the musician clans of the region. Gilgit Baltistan is rich in natural resources. Its major resources are gold, emerald, uranium, forests and water blue gold in modern terminology. Government of Pakistan is collecting billions of rupees from the tourism of this area. World highest and tallest peaks are situated in this area. Mount K2 and Godwin- Austin are one of them which attract expeditions and mountaineers across the globe. Trans Karakoram route which is the only link of Pakistan with China trade and commerce but local people are kept isolated of any benefit of such business. This area is blessed of huge assets of water resources. Kashmir has five rivers which are 1. River Indus 2. River Kishanganga 3. River Jhelum 4. River Chenab 5. River Poonch This area is most marginalized in the field of health and education. There is only one university for the population of 2 million people, but no medical and engineering college or polytechnique institute for the population of entire region. The women situation in the area is even worst due to poor health care facilities have deteriorated health conditions in female and they are particularly victim of Pakistani state fundamentalist policies in this area. There are only two colleges in the area and literacy rate among men is 14% and 3.5 % is among women. There is no major hospital in the area except Agha Khan Rural Support Program (AKRSP), which is the only Non-Governmental- Organization (NGO) providing primary health care to the people of this area. There is no industry in this area. Water and sewerage system is non-existent so is the electricity where more than two third of the population of the area. The attempts to wage a political struggle through the Northern Areas Legislative Council (NALC), have been handicapped by the ban imposed by the Pakistani authorities on any one contesting elections unless he or she pledge that the Gilgit Baltistan is an integral part of Pakistan. Similarly constitutional restraints are in placed in Azad Kashmir to bar political opponents from participating in the elections those stipulations are clear violations of UNCIP resolutions. High court of so called Azad Kashmir verdict of 1993 and clear verdict of Supreme Court of Pakistan in 1999 define that Gilgit Baltistan is part and parcel of Jammu Kashmir’ and Government of Pakistan was asked to hand over administrative control of this area to the so called Government of Azad Kashmir or least they should be given opportunity to form their own legislative Assembly. But these verdicts went unnoticed under red tape of ministry of Kashmir affairs that enjoys the total control and absolute administrative powers and financial affairs from Islamabad and local people are treated as slaves. More than two hundred political activists are facing so called sedition charges in this area while constitutionally and legally this region is not part of Pakistan. Dear Delegates, I’m grateful to you for your keen interest in poliitical, constitutional and socio-economic deprivation of the people of Gilgit Baltistan and would like to put following suggestions in this regard. • We welcome the end of military rule and installation of democratically elected Government in Pakistan and we should support democratic forces. • We warmly welcome ban lifted on trade unions and students organizations, and we also express jubilance over the release of top judges of apex courts. Yet an independent judiciary is a dream in today’s Pakistan. We should support the Lawyers’ movement in Pakistan. • Borders should be opened between Gilgit Baltistan and Ladakh like some crossing points have been opened in Pakistan Administered Kashmir. • A bus service should immediately be started between Ladakh and Gilgit Baltistan so that the divided families and cultural links could be reunited and revitalized between both regions. • We strongly urge world community and particularly European Parliament to establish a fact finding mission to be sent in Pakistani Administered Gilgit Baltistan and in Pakistani Administered Kashmir to see ground realities and particularly the worst situation of earthquake victims of October -2005. • Having regard of the world community most generous support to rehabilitate effected people, Government of Pakistan and local administration in Pakistan Administered Kashmir have failed to do so accordingly. • We urge world community and European Parliament to oversee the funds allocated to earthquake victims and misuse of those funds by the concerned authorities and Government officials. • We strongly condemn attack on a member of Pakistani Administrative Legislative Assembly Mr. Tahir Khokhar who was asking in the assembly about misusing the public funds but was beaten in the house by the government ministers. We demand that independent inquiry should be held in this regard and allegations labeled by him must be fairly investigated. • We recommend that to empower women of the most deprived region there should be special quota be allocated for them so that they can also participate in socio-economic and political advancement of 21st century requirements • We also recommend that to provide them free and cheap justice to the people an independent judiciary of world standard be established for the people of Gilgit Baltistan. ltistanight of the people of Gilgit Baltistan

Aksai Chin: China’s disputed slice of Kashmir

)

By Nick Easen
CNN

(CNN) – It may be nothing but an ice desert with little geographical, economic or military value but the dotted red line of disputed territory still encompasses a slice of Tibetan plateau known as Aksai Chin.

This area, which is about 20 percent of the whole of Kashmir, belongs neither to India or Pakistan but the region’s other nuclear superpower — China.

As Beijing’s southern neighbors mass troops in a potentially explosive standoff, China peers over the towering peaks and glaciers of the Himalayas nervously.

Chinese foreign policy spokesmen have been careful not to take sides in their statements on Kashmir — the memory of a brief but brutal war in 1962 was precipitated by China’s actions in this very sector.

It culminated in China seizing about 38,000 square kilometers (14,670 sq mile) of Indian territory in Aksai Chin, as well as another 5,180 sq km (2,000 sq miles) of northern Kashmir that Pakistan later ceded to Beijing under a 1963 pact.

Regional analysts say that the area is so remote that India’s intelligence service didn’t learn that China had established a road through the area until the following decade.

Remote but important

The 1962 war over Aksai Chin led to the severing of direct air links between India and China, routes that were not reintroduced until March of this year — heralding a warming of relations between the former foes.

And at present China is officially remaining impartial despite having vested interests in Kashmir — it is appealing for restraint from both sides.

For the northern nuclear power is quite aware that both Pakistan and India are quite willing to fight over pieces of real estate that are of little value.

Beijing just has to look at the 18-year old death toll on the icy pinnacles of the Siachen glacier, the world’s highest ‘cold war’ to understand what extremes the nuclear adversaries are prepared to go to.

It is also very much aware of India’s utopian mantra for this northern area — Pakistan to hand over Pakistan occupied Kashmir and China ditto for Aksai Chin.

This is one of the reasons why India and China have made slow progress in resolving differences over their shared 4,500-km (2,600-mile) Himalayan frontier.

A good portion of it — 3,268 km (2,043 miles) still falls into the three disputed sectors.

Their disputes over the western and eastern sectors are particularly thorny and have hampered better relations for years.

Although last November a minor breakthrough saw another official exchange of approved maps in yet another disputed sector.

While India claims areas of Kashmir, China claims large parts of the northeastern Indian states of Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh.

Busy in Aksai Chin

Yet over the last 40 years China has been busy in Aksai Chin.

Now an all weather highway links remote western Tibet (China calls it Xizang province) with southern Xinjiang province, it is a vital logistical route.

Han Chinese trucks full of Hami melons and dried produce ply the restricted highway along with military supply trucks.

The road most of which is over 4,000 meters — one of the highest and coldest in the world — now links Lhasa to Kashgar.

Yet it comes at great cost, the strategic highway needs constant maintenance by remote public works stations.

Travel for tourists in this area is still restricted and those who decide to make the journey by bike or in the back of supply trucks are normally fined at security stops.

KASHMIR – Historical Perspective

KASHMIR – Historical Perspective

U. N. RESOLUTIONS – A REALITY
In 1946, M A Jinnah conferred with the leaders of J&K for merger with the proposed new state of Pakistan but did not get a favourable response. On 20 October, 1947 , Pakistan, not adhering to the Stand Still Agreement with the Maharaja of J&K, launched an invasion of J&K by Tribals led by Pakistan Army officers, prompting the Maharaja to accede to India on 26 October, 1947. The Indian Army saved Srinagar in the nick of time and cleared two thirds of Kashmir from the infiltrators. Subsequently a UN -sponsored ceasefire was accepted.

Appeal to the UN
On 30 December, 1947, while the operations were still in progress, and going India’s way, Indian Political leadership appealed to the United Nations to intervene and ask Pakistan to withdraw its troops. Four UN Resolutions were passed during 1948 and 1949. These envisaged the following :-
- Pakistan to withdraw all its troops from areas it had occupied in Kashmir.
- After Pakistan troops withdrawal, India to withdraw the bulk of its forces but to maintain a requisite strength for safeguarding the law and order in the state.
- Subsequently, the future status of the state was to be determined in accordance with the will of the people.

Pakistan’s Default and Culpability.
- As it was guilty of the invasion of J&K, it did not abide by the UN Resolution and neither withdrew its troops and infiltrators. Instead, it built airfields in the occupied territory, and imposed A full civilian and military control while claiming the territory as Azad Kashmir. For these violations the UN could not impose sanctions on Pakistan as the Resolution was not under Chapter VII of the Charter.
- To win Chinese support, it gifted 4853 sq km of the Kashmiri territory in the Shaksgam Valley to
China in 1963, thus disrupting the territorial integrity of the State of J&K. Now, to recover this
territory it is next to impossible.
- Pakistan by a Constitution Amendment incorporated a part of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir(POK),
that is, Northern Areas, in Pakistan, thereby changing the territorial status of J&K and violating the UN Resolutions.
- Pakistan has changed the DEMOGRAPHY of POK by resettling large number of Punjabi ex- servicemen and Afghans from NWFP, thereby making plebiscite of erstwhile J&K irrelevant.
- Pakistan launched three large scale operations on India in 1965, 1971 and the recent Kargil war in 1999 with an attempt to militarily change the territorial status of J&K.
-After 1971 as Bangladesh was formed from East pakistan, Pakistan could no longer cite the two nation theory nor could it claim that it was the true homeland of all Muslims of the sub continent, therefore Pakistan claim on Kashmir became invalid. Also post 1971the Pakistan which remained was not even party to the dispute since it had less than half the population of original Pakistan.
- Pakistan signed the Simla Agreement in 1972 and Lahore Accord in 1998 with India, stating resolving of all disputes between two countries bilaterally and through peaceful negotiations.
- Since 1988, Pakistan has sponsored cross border terrorism in J&K with an aim to change the territorial status of J&K unilaterally which is again violation of the UN Resolutions.

Other Aspects.
- China is illegally occupying Aksai Chin area which is 19 percent of the territory. It will be next to impossible for the UN to make China vacate the area.
- In addition to the people of J&K, the Pakistan paid stooges in Kashmir demanding the implementation of the UN Resolutions, have participated in elections conducted in J&K, sworn by the Indian Constitution and also been members of the State Legislative Assembly for number of years. So, what other plebiscite they are asking for now?

THE WORLD MUST REMEMBER THAT ERSTWHILE JAMMU AND KASHMIR CONSISTED OF JAMMU REGION, KASHMIR REGION, LADAKH REGION, PAKISTAN OCCUPIED KASHMIR, BALTISTAN, GILGIT, HUNZA, SHAKSGAM VALLEY AND AKSAI CHIN (BOTH OCCUPIED BY CHINA)

AND NOT

KASHMIR ALONE

DO YOU STILL THINK UN RESOLUTIONS ARE
RELEVANT AND CAN BE IMPLEMENTED?

Unmasking China

Unmasking China
By Bharat Verma
Issue: Vol 24.3 Jul-Sep 2009

China will launch an attack on India before 2012.

There are multiple reasons for a desperate Beijing to teach India the final lesson, thereby ensuring Chinese supremacy in Asia in this century. The recession that shut the Chinese exports shop is creating an unprecedented internal social unrest. In turn, the vice-like grip of the communists over the society stands severely threatened.

Unemployment is on the rise. The unofficial estimate stands at a whopping fourteen percent. Worldwide recession has put thirty million people out of jobs. Economic slowdown is depleting the foreign exchange reserves. Foreign investors are slowly shifting out. To create a domestic market, the massive dole of loans to individuals is turning out to be a nightmare. There appears to be a flight of capital in billions of dollars in the shape of diamond and gold bought in Hong Kong and shipped out towards end 2008.

The fear of losing control over the Chinese masses is forcing the communists to compulsorily install filtering software on new computers on sale to crush dissent on the Internet, even though it is impossible to censor in entirety the flow of information as witnessed recently in Tibet, Xinjiang and Iran.

The growing internal unrest is making Beijing jittery.

The external picture appears to be equally dismal. The unfolding Obama strategy seems to be scoring goals for democracy and freedom without firing a single shot. While Bush unwittingly united and arrayed against himself Islamic countries and radical Islam worldwide, Obama has put radical Islam in disarray by lowering the intra-societal temperature vis-à-vis America and the Muslim world. He deftly hints at democracy in his talk without directly threatening any group or country and the youth picks it up from there – as in Iran. With more and more Chinese citizens beginning to demand political freedom, the future of the communists is also becoming uncertain. The technological means available in the 21st century to spread democracy is definitely not conducive for the totalitarian regime in Beijing.

India’s chaotic but successful democracy is an eyesore for the authoritarian regime in Beijing. Unlike India, China is handicapped as it lacks the soft power – an essential ingredient to spread influence. This further adds fuel to the fire.

In addition, the growing irrelevance of Pakistan, their right hand that operates against India on their behest, is increasing the Chinese nervousness. Obama’s AF-PAK policy is primarily a PAK-AF policy. It has intelligently set the thief to catch the thief. The stated withdrawal from Iraq by America now allows it to concentrate its military surplus on the single front to successfully execute the mission. This surplus, in combination with other democratic forces, enables America to look deep into resource rich Central Asia, besides containing China’s expansionist ambitions.

To offset this adverse scenario, while overtly pretending to side with the West, the Chinese covertly ordered their other proxy, North Korea, to test underground nuclear explosions and carry out trials of missiles that threaten Japan and South Korea. The Chinese anxiety is understandable. Under Bush’s declared policy of being ‘a strategic competitor’ alongside the ‘axis of evil’, they shared a large strategic maneuverability with others of similar hues. However, Obama policies wisely deny such a luxury by reclaiming more and more international strategic space ceded by the previous administration.

The communists in China, therefore, need a military victory to unite the disillusioned citizenry behind them. This will assist in marketing the psychological perception that the 21st century belongs to China and assert their deep belief in the superiority of the Chinese race. To retain the communist party’s hold on power, it is essential to divert attention from the brewing internal dissent. In an autocratic system normally the only recipe to unite the citizenry is by mannpulating their nationalistic feelings. The easy method for Beijing to heighten the feeling of patriotism and forging national unity is to design a war with an adversary. They believe that this will help them to midwife the Chinese century. That is the end game rooted in the abiding conviction of the communists that the Chinese race is far superior to Nazi Germany and is destined to “Lord over the Earth”.

At present, there is no overall cost benefit ratio in integrating Taiwan by force with the mainland, since under the new dispensation in Taipei, the island is ‘behaving’ itself. Also, the American presence around the region is too strong for comfort. There is also the factor of Japan to be reckoned. Though Beijing is increasing its naval presence in the South China Sea to coerce into submission those opposing its claim on the Sprately Islands, at this point of time in history it will be unwise for recession-hit China to move against the Western interests, including Japan. Therefore, the most attractive option is to attack a soft target like India and forcibly occupy its territory in the Northeast.

Ideally, the Chinese believe that the east-wind should prevail over the west-wind. However, despite their imperial calculations of the past, they lag behind the West, particularly America, by many decades. Hence, they want the east-wind to at least prevail over the other east-wind, i.e., India, to ensure their dominance over Asia. Beijing’s cleverly raising the hackles on its fabricated dispute in Arunachal Pradesh to an alarming level, is the preparatory groundwork for imposing such a conflict on India. A sinking Pakistan will team up with China to teach India “the final lesson”.

The Chinese leadership wants to rally its population behind the communist rule. As it is, Beijing is already rattled, with its proxy Pakistan, now literally embroiled in a civil war, losing its sheen against India. Above all, it is worried over the growing alliance of India with the United States and the West, because the alliance has the potential to create a technologically superior counterpoise.

All these three concerns of the Chinese communists are best addressed by waging a war against pacifist India to achieve multiple strategic objectives. But India, otherwise the biggest challenge to the supremacy of China in Asia, is least prepared on ground to face the Chinese threat.

How will India repel the Chinese game plan? Will Indian leadership be able to take the heat of war? Have they laid the groundwork adequately to defend India? Is the Indian military equipped to face the two-front war by Beijing and Islamabad? Is the Indian Civil Administration geared to meet the internal security challenges that the external actors will sponsor simultaneously through their doctrine of unrestricted warfare?

The answers is an unequivocal ‘NO’. Pacifist India is not ready by a long shot either on the internal or the external front.

It is said that long time back, a king with an excellent military machine at his disposal could not stomach the violence involved in winning wars. So he renounced war in victory. This led to the rise of the pacifist philosophies. The state either refused to defend itself or neglected the instruments that could defend it.

Any ‘extreme’ is dangerous, as it tends to create imbalance in statecraft.

We saw that in the unjust unilateral aggression in Iraq. It diminished the American aura and recessed the economy. China’s despotic regime is another extreme, scared to permit political dissent. This will fuel an explosion worse than the Tiananmen Square. Despite the use of disproportionate force and the demographic invasion of Tibet, Beijing’s hold remains tenuous. Pakistan’s over-aggressive agenda in the name of jihad haunts it now to the point of fragmentation of the State.

Similarly, India’s pacifism is the other extreme. 26/11s will occur on a regular basis as it infects policy-making. Such extreme postures on either side invariably generate wars. Armed with an aggressive Wahabi philosophy, Pakistan, in cohort with China, wants to destabilize a pacifist India. India’s instruments of state steeped in pacifism are unable to rise to its defence.

In the past sixty years, the deep-rooted pacifism contributed to the Civil Administration, ceding control of forty per cent of the Union’s territory to the Maoists and ten percent to the insurgents, effecting a shrinking influence internally, as well in the ‘near abroad’.

India must rapidly shift out from its defeatist posture of pacifism to deter China. New Delhi’s stance should modify, not to aggression, but to a firm assertion in statecraft. The state must also exclusively retain the capability of intervention by use of force internally as well as externally. If it permits the non-state actors to develop this capability in competition, then the state will whither away. On the contrary, the state machinery should ensure a fast-paced development in the Red Corridor even it if has to hold Maoists hostage at gunpoint. The state’s firm and just intervention will dissolve the Maoist movement.

Keeping in view the imminent threat posed by China, the quickest way to swing out of pacifism to a state of assertion is by injecting military thinking in the Civil Administration to build the sinews. That will enormously increase the deliverables on ground – from Lalgarh to Tawang.

Bharat Verma, Editor Indian Defence Review.

China’s Kashmir

In an opinion piece titled “How does China handle its Kashmir?” in the latest issue of Organiser, S Gurumurthy writes: “That China too has its Kashmir and problem with Islamist separatists identical to India’s Kashmir is not widely known. Xinjiang is China’s Kashmir. Xinjiang actually shares borders with Ladakh in India’s Kashmir. China’s Kashmir is physically 100 times bigger than India’s and therefore its problem too is that bigger. Yet many do not know about it. The reason is that China prevented Xinjiang, its Kashmir, from becoming an international issue like India’s Kashmir. Xinjiang, which had a majority Turkish Mulims [known as Uyghurs] in 1949, had a short lived state of East Turkestan. China invaded it, crushed it, won back its territory. The name Xinjiang literally means ‘old frontier returns to China’! See the contrast. A year earlier, in 1948, India almost won back most of the Kashmir from Pakistan which had invaded it, but, voluntarily offered and turned it into an international issue. It was India, not Pakistan, which went to the United Nations; made it an international issue. It is struggling to say it is a bilateral one! Now, on to how China handled Xinjiang, its Kashmir, and integrated it with mainland China.”

He adds: “Xinjiang has a population of 20 million plus. The Uyghur Muslims constitute 45 per cent; other Muslims 12 per cent and Hans 41 per cent. What was the population of Han Chinese in Xinjiang in 1949? Just 6 per cent; in six decades it has risen by seven times. This change did not occur on its own. China did not just trust army or administrative control of its territory in Xinjiang. It trusted only its people. It ensured that the Han Chinese slowly began populating Xinjiang. The result is self-evident. But the 41 per cent Han Chinese population does not include Chinese defence personnel and families, and unregistered migrant Chinese workers”.
He concludes: “Yes China do have problem with Islamist separatists, extremists and terrorists. But it has, by diplomacy and action, kept that an internal problem of China unlike India which has on its own made the Kashmir an international issue. China has changed the religious and political demography of Xinjiang by ensuring that 41 per cent of the province’s population is non-Muslim. Instead of working to change the demography in favour of India like China has done, the Indian government, in contrast, could not even prevent the expulsion of the Hindus from the Valley. While Xinjiang is half filled by Han Chinese, Kashmir is cleansed of the Hindus. With the result, India has to defend Kashmir by the army instead of by the people. Had India followed the policy which Chinese had adopted in Xinjiang, conquering back Kashmir instead of contracting under Article 370 which prevented rest of Indians from migrating to Kashmir, today Kashmir would have demographically integrated with India. India would be dealing with internal riots occasionally like China does; and not face or fight wars with Pakistan and with terrorists everyday. The lesson for India is: demography — religious demographic balance that is in tune with the national mainstream — is the guarantee for the nation”.

Courtsy:Indian express

Kashmir not the issue, Pak-Afghan border is

Kashmir not the issue, Pak-Afghan border is

It now turns out that Indian lobbying was successful in ensuring that India and/or Kashmir is not part of Mr Richard Holbrooke’s official brief. Mr Holbrooke was named “special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan” by the US secretary of state, Ms Hillary Clinton, after India made clear its sensitivities on this issue to the Obama administration. The Indian government was apparently so concerned about the Holbrooke mission to South Asia that they informed Obama officials that it would not hesitate to make Mr Holbrooke persona non grata should his brief include India or Kashmir. The Obama administration, realising that they might have a diplomatic crisis on their hands at the very beginning of their term, promptly complied. While this does not mean that the Kashmir issue has gone off the agenda, it demonstrates the limits of Western influence on the issue, especially as it comes after British foreign secretary Mr David Miliband’s disastrous visit to India.
During his recent trip, Mr Miliband not only revealed his fundamental ignorance about regional issues but in one stroke demolished whatever little credibility Britain had in India. His hectoring of the Indian government that the resolution of the Kashmir dispute is essential to solving the problem of extremism in South Asia revealed a man completely out of his depth.
Granted that Indians tend to overreact whenever there is even an indication of any outside interest on the issue of Kashmir, but Mr Miliband’s ill-informed pronouncements and complete lack of sensitivity towards Indian concerns underlie a larger problem with the emerging Western response to the evolving security environment in South Asia. It started with the US President, Mr Barack Obama’s suggestion that the success of US endeavours in Afghanistan depend on greater American activism on Kashmir. Mr Miliband, it turns out, was rather prompt in taking his cue for the changing winds in Washington.
India has been a victim of terrorism long before the Twin Towers came down on September 11, 2001 and the London subway was bombed on July 7, 2005. The West created, supported and helped the Mujahideen dislodge the Soviet Union from Afghanistan and, when the Soviets left, the West promptly left Afghanistan to its own devices. The gravest consequences of the Talibanisation of Afghanistan and the Islamisation of Pakistan have been felt by India which has, over the years, seen a sustained increase in cross-border terrorism of growing lethality.
The Kashmir conflict is a very small part of this larger dynamic and with two consecutive successful elections, the last one witnessing around 60 per cent participation by Jammu and Kashmir’s electorate, it is hardly the reason why Mumbai was attacked or why the West is losing the war in Afghanistan. To rationalise the terrorist attacks in Mumbai by linking them to the Kashmir issue not only defies logic and is devoid of any serious analysis but it is also profoundly irresponsible and dangerous. It ignores Indian attempts over the past decade to acknowledge the aspirations of Kashmiris with the liberal, democratic and secular framework of its Constitution as well as bilateral attempts by India and Pakistan to reach some sort of understanding on this issue.
It also weakens the position of the newly-established civilian government in Pakistan vis-à-vis the military. For the Pakistani military, the bogey of Kashmir is essential to retaining its predominant position in the Pakistani society and state.
It is true that the West is on the verge of losing the war in Afghanistan and it desperately needs Pakistan’s support. Pakistan keeps threatening to move its troops from the western to the eastern frontier and is demanding its pound of flesh for helping the West. And the only thing that the West seems to be able to offer is Kashmir.
Mr Miliband needs to realise that those who attacked Mumbai and are creating problems for the West in Afghanistan do not give a damn about Kashmir. The targets in Mumbai — hotels, a train station, foreign visitors, Jews — reveal the ever-growing ambition of groups like Lashkar-e-Tayyaba whose leader, Hafiz Saeed, has openly talked about creating a “Muslim South Asia”. Islamist radicalism is not a consequence of the Kashmir problem and just as 9/11 and 7/7 cannot be attributed to the non-resolution of the Palestinian issue, Mumbai attacks cannot be a consequence of the Kashmir problem. The vast tribal areas in Pakistan, which have never been under the effective control of any Pakistani government, have become the breeding ground of Islamist radicals. And from there they are wreaking havoc in Afghanistan — not allowing new democratic institutions to take root and allowing for a possible return of a reinvigorated Taliban. Radical Islamist ideology is also now penetrating far and wide. Recent terror attacks in Britain owe a lot to these lawless areas where several British citizens have come, trained and gone back to terrorise their country.
India cannot be expected to give in to Pakistan’s territorial ambitions so that the Pakistani Army can fight more effectively in the troubled border regions of the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) and Federally Administered Tribal Areas (Fata). It is the underlying fragility of Pakistan’s basic institutions that is haunting Pakistan and with it the entire region as well as the West’s war on Islamist extremism. The state institutions — the civilian government and the military — seem unwilling to acknowledge the obvious: that the threat of extremism that is haunting the very survival of Pakistan today is the consequence of Pakistan’s long-standing policy of using Islamist extremist mobilisation and jihadist terror for domestic political purposes as well as for projecting Pakistan’s ambitions in its neighbourhood.
The real threat to the West today comes from the lawless borderlands of Pakistan and Afghanistan where Al Qaeda and Taliban are riding a wave of resurgence, steadily gaining more and more territory. Mr Miliband would be well-advised to open his eyes to the two-faced policy of the Pakistani Army and instead of rationalising its dangerous policies he should be holding its feet to the fire. The answers to the British and American problems in Afghanistan lie in Pakistan, not in Kashmir.
Mr Miliband rather grandiosely concluded his article in the Guardian by suggesting that the best response to terrorism is to refuse to be cowed down. But that’s exactly what he preached to New Delhi during his failed visit. Thankfully, India learned its lessons from the Miliband trip.

Harsh V. Pant teaches in King’s College London

Pakistan’s Mysterious Reluctance on LoC Trade

Pakistan’s Mysterious Reluctance on LoC Trade
Md. Sadiq

For the people of the Kashmir Valley locked as they are into an isolated region surrounded by high mountains, the opening of more trade and transit routes would be a welcome step. The Indian government has not tried to stop Kashmiri trade through Muzaffarabad with Pakistan. In fact, the Indian government has repeatedly been telling Pakistan to open a trading point at the LoC so that Kashmiris on both sides could trade as well as transit. The Pakistanis mysteriously have resisted such proposals.
For the people of the Kashmir Valley locked as they are into an isolated region surrounded by high mountains, the opening of more trade and transit routes would be a welcome step. The recent agitation in Jammu showed how vulnerable fruit growers in the Valley are. As the only lifeline of the Valley via the Banihal tunnel to Jammu was virtually besieged, fruit growers could only watch in dismay as their produce rotted. Several Kashmiri leaders also played an insidious role by preventing and scaring fruit growers from sending their produce through the convoys to other parts of the country. The separatists in particular, used the occasion to gain political mileage by telling the businessmen in Kashmir that they should trade with Pakistan through the closed Muzaffarabad route. By instilling fear into the businessmen and ensuring that they suffered business losses, the separatists succeeded in making their point as well as stirring up further discontent amongst businessmen. The strange fact however is that the Indian government has not tried to stop Kashmiri trade through Muzaffarabad with Pakistan. In fact, the Indian government has repeatedly been telling Pakistan to open a trading point at the LoC so that Kashmiris on both sides could trade as well as transit. The Pakistanis mysteriously have resisted such proposals without saying an outright ‘no’ to them. Clearly, the demand of separatist to resume trade via Muzaffarabad is not aimed at promoting of trade but making another political point.

The government of India, on the other hand, has been trying its best to begin LoC trade as soon as possible. It is learnt that Pranab Mukherjee had made a formal request to Pakistan for revival of the cross-LoC trade. Reports said India had submitted a list of 14 items for import including precious stones, namdas and embroidery works. Some Kashmiri traders want to be allowed to transit through Pakistan to sell their fruit in India through the Wagah border crossing. Pakistan does not wish to allow transit trade. Thus it is Pakistan which is proving to be a stumbling block to LoC trade which is exactly opposite of what the Hurriyat leadership is trying to make it out to be. Though the Separatists are supported by Pakistan, there has been no positive response from Islamabad to the positive gestures and initiatives by Indian govt for starting trade via Muzaffarabad Road. Ministers like Saifuddin Soz and others have already announced concrete measures for LoC trade but a response from across the border is still awaited. This is despite constant demands form various section of J&K state including political leaders like Mehbooba Mufti and secessionist groups, to facilitate trade of goods via the Muzaffarabad road.

The real problem appears to be one of market. According to an estimate, the purchasing power of people of POK and surrounding areas is low as compared to Indian side and this could translate into lower demand. The cities of Punjab are already full of fresh and dried fruits. Karachi is quite far away and there are apprehensions about the success of trade with that city. The Separatist leaders however claim that by trading their goods via Muzaffarabad road businessmen can earn more profits, which appears to be contrary to the reality. It remains to be seen whether the sale of the two main Kashmiri products apples and handicrafts to Pakistan will bring more profit than from the trade with the rest of India. Moreover, economic experts feel that profitable trade for J&K state is more feasible as well as desirable via traditional land route (Srinagar –Jammu highway) because of its well-set infrastructure and availability of markets. Also, according to Kashmir Observer “Pakistan had outright rejected 12 items, including fresh fruit, saffron and papier machie, from the list India had proposed for export from this side of the Line of Control. There, however, was no official confirmation from either side of the divide about the vital items being left out of the cross-LoC trade proposal.”

But things could look up. For, India and Pakistan have decided to expedite the process of starting cross-Line of Control (LoC) trade. According to a report in the Daily Times, “Senior officials from both countries are holding a meeting here on September 22 to finalise modalities and items to be traded across the LoC. Both sides have expressed commitment to begin truck services along the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad road early next month. An official spokesman said the India-Pakistan Joint Working Group on Cross-LoC CBMs would meet in Delhi to finalise modalities.” Meanwhile, another report says that facilities for LoC trade are almost complete on the Indian side. According to one news item, quoting the chief secretary of J&K, “facilities for the Cross-LoC trade at Salamabad would be fully in place within the next three to four weeks and additional land was being acquired for the construction of a state-of-the-art Land Custom Station there.” State Chief secretary S S Kapoor said a similar facility would be set up at Chakan da Bagh in Poonch for Cross-LoC trade through Poonch-Rawlakote road. A temporary Land Custom Station would be constructed to facilitate the trade across the LoC. India is trying to open LoC trade by Eid but it remains to be seen if Pakistan will allow this.

India and Pakistan are trying to normalise their relations for the betterment of the people of the region. It is very important therefore that peace return to Kashmir. However, it seems certain vested elements are in search of opportunities to spoil the atmosphere of fast growing Indo-Pak friendship and cooperation. Not surprisingly, some separatists leaders raised the slogan of “Muzaffarabad Chalo” during the Sri Amarnath Yatra land agitation. This was an emotive and not a real issue. Sadly, it is this kind of hypocrisy that is continuously preventing Kashmir to climb out of the morass of a sense of victimisation and violence.

SHEIKH ABDULLAH’S INTERVIEW WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE ON 7TH FEBURARY 1948

SHEIKH ABDULLAH’S INTERVIEW WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE ON 7TH FEBURARY 1948.
[This telegram is of particular secrecy and should be retained by the authorized recipient and not passed on]
Cypher/OTP
DIPLOMATIC (SECRET)
FROM NEW YORK TO FOREIGN OFFICE
(From United Kingdom Delegation to United Nations)
No. 390 D. 2.25 p.m. 9th February, 1948
9th February, 1948 P. 8.18 p.m. 9th February, 1948
Repeated to High Commissioner New Delhi,
; High Commissioner Karachi
Washington Saving,
MOST IMMEDIATE

TOP SECRET
Addressed to For eign Office telegram No. 390 of 9th February repeated for information to High Commissioner New Delhi and High Commissioner Karachi and Saving to Washington.
Following for C.R.O. from Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations.
My immediately preceding telegram. Following is account of interview. [Begins]
At the request of Gopalaswami Ayyengar the Secretary of State interviewed Sheikh Abdullah on February 7th.
2. Secretary of State started by making it clear that Kashmir situation was one in which he was quite impartial and that his only concern was to stop the fighting and to introduce measures whereby the people would be given opportunity to express their views as to their future in a free and fair manner. Secretary of State pointed out that the importance of a settlement was matter of world interest since war on sub-continent of India would involve some 400 million people and would not only be disastrous for the people of India and Pakistan but to the world in general and to Asia in particular. World interest in the matter was therefore very considerable and opinions were being formed as a result of debates in the Security Council.
3. Sheikh Abdullah by producing all the arguments he had used in his speech of 5th February to the Security Council. He laid particular stress on his own position in Kashmir as the chosen leader of the people in their fight for freedom and said that local insurgents and his party were all fighting with the same object. He denied hotly that there had been any killings in Kashmir before October and laid whole blame for events on action of Pakistan Government. He invited neutral observers to go to Kashmir and to report whether his contentions regarding Pakistan Government were correct or not. His only solution to the problem was that Pakistan Government should be called upon to remove tribesmen. Thereafter Indian forces in Kashmir would suppress the local insurgents (he actually used the word ‘suppress’) and would organize elections for a new representative Government which would then organize and run a plebiscite. He ridiculed and suggestion that an impartial administration might be necessary to carry out a plebiscite.
4. In course of further discussion it was pointed out to Sheikh Abdullah that his solution to the problem involved further fighting in Kashmir to “suppress” the revolt of the local insurgents and that it would probably provoke war with the tribes of the North West Frontier and perhaps between India and Pakistan. His retort was “let there be war”. He evaded answering the direct question “against whom are the local insurgents fighting”?
5. On returning again to the question of how fighting could be stopped Sheikh Abdullah gave the unconstructive answer “give Kashmir to Pakistan now”. The Secretary of State replied “even that would be better for India and more advantageous for her than that she should enter on a war the consequences and result of which are unforeseeable”. Sheikh Abdullah quickly twisted his own answer as being the answer of the Secretary of State to the problem and said “you think this would be a nice solution”. The Secretary of State corrected him and pointed out exactly what he said in reply to Sheikh Abdullah’s statement. Sheikh Abdullah however again returned to this allegation in further conversation.
6. Since further discussion was producing nothing constructive the interview was ended by the Secretary of State restating his position as given paragraph 2 above. Sheikh Abdullah’s attitude throughout was completely uncomprising and his parting words, announced in a somewhat hostile manner were “we shall hold a plebiscite under conditions laid down by ourselves”. [Ends]
Foreign Office please repeats to United Kingdom High Commissioner New Delhi and Pakistan as my telegrams Nos. 58 and 42 respectively.
[Advance copies sent to Duty Officer C.R.O. and Cypher Section C.R.O. for repetition to United Kingdom High Commissioners New Delhi and Pakistan].

&n bsp; COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
* Date of initiation of this message is February 1948, i.e. initial stages of war in the former disputed State, consisting areas of Gilgit, Baltistan, Laddakh, Muzaffarabad, Vale of Kashmir, Riyasi, Poonch, Jammu, Kathua. Sheikh is stressing rightly on removal of tribesmen but has given confused statements on suppression and purpose of “Local Insurgents”. Local insurgents are most probably the freedom fighters in Gilgit-Baltistan Laddakh and so called Azad Jammu Kashmir. The Shiekh has displayed a confused mind in 1947-48, lacking originality. * The flatterers of the group of Sardar Qayyum say, “Kashmir will become (Banaiga) Pakistan”. But, they do not explain as to how? Similarly, the Nationalists say, former State of BJK will become independent. But, they do not adequately explain as to how, short of militancy? Can they give out the basics of the dispute in terms of political geographical boundaries, political administrative units at the time of dispute and in future, the ongoing South Asian / international status of the disputed regions, interim administrations responsible to work till final resolution of the dispute and what all is relevant and discarded in the UN concerned documents?
* UNCIP and UN Resolutions, connected correspondence and treaties on the former disputed State concluded under UN charter, ought to be wholesomely read and understood thoroughly by the intellectual and nationalists of BJK to turn the tables against the occupational, enslaving and criminal presence of the Govts of Pakistan and India. India, Pakistan and the World agreed once upon a time on it in 1948 and now both the Govts are running away from it, especially Govt of Pakistan on Gilgit-Baltistan issue. Only few additions are required in UNCIP Resolutions for the freedom and dignity of the oppressed people of BJK.
* Mr Javed Inayat’s demand of restoration of BJK Army is a very heartening and welcome sign. Offcourse, this is given out in UNCIP correspondence. It should be BJK Army, because J&K Army in Bolor should not be an occupational army. It will take time to arrive at a mutually agreed single identity. In the meantime BJK identity should work for the people of divided and disputed former State.
* It is being authentically heard that the Prime Minister of Pakistan is in the very near future going to Gilgit-Baltistan to announce a political package there. It is said to be envisaging upgrading so called Northern Area Legislative Council (not a single legislation carried so far) to Northern Area Legislative Assembly. Besides, it is said that the advisors of the non-local Chief Executive will be enjoying the status of provincial ministers. This is all fraud, another lollypop and an anesthesia. The Govt of Pakistan should know that it is high time that they must setup a complete and genuine local Authority Govt in Gilgit, as accepted by themselves and the UN. The Chief Executive should be a local elected member and army rule must finish from there. Everybody concerned should minutely monitor the Prime Minister of Pakistan’s forthcoming visit to Gilgit-Baltistan.

LOOK AT THE SUBSTANDARD.