Disinformation Media Misinformation News Pakistan

Demolishing Dawn’s Deception

Rohan Giri Dawn.com, the Pakistani news outlet that hosts Naqvi’s fabrications, has a long history of anti-Indian prejudice, regularly publishing articles that undermine Indian sovereignty and national interests. While it claims to support democracy, it rarely, if ever, scrutinizes Pakistan’s establishment with the same zeal as it does India. The hypocrisy is apparent. It is a journal that thrives on manufactured frustration with India while deliberately avoiding the dictatorial reality of its country. Jawed Naqvi’s most recent piece in The Dawn, “India’s left-right centenary,” is another example of selective indignation and intellectual dishonesty. It is deliberately written to support the myth that Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) is the face of fascism in India. In his distinctive manner, Naqvi weaves together hypocritical historical allusions, ideological prejudices, and plain lies to create a story that has been disproven time and time again but is still promoted by those who are unwilling to confront except facts. In addition to criticizing RSS, his piece highlights the larger intellectual squalor that plagues segments of the Indian left and its supporters abroad. Exposing his distortions is not only necessary but also morally required since, if allowed unchecked, lying takes on the appearance of reality. Naqvi’s argument’s basic tenet is a sloppy and false analogy between RSS and European fascism. It reveals a basic misinterpretation—possibly deliberate—of fascism as well as the intellectual and historical foundations of RSS. RSS has never aspired to be an authoritarian entity, in contrast to Hitler’s racial superiority or Mussolini’s corporatist state. It continued to be a sociocultural movement dedicated to self-reliance, national cohesion, and a continuation of civilization. The alleged similarities to European fascism are merely rhetorical instruments employed by people who wish to discredit the movement without actually participating in its activities. The irrationality of this accusation is further demonstrated by the fact that RSS has never supported racial supremacy, a one-party system, or a dictatorship—all of which are fundamental elements of fascism. Decentralization of authority, community-driven governance, and cultural revival—values that are directly in conflict with the core of fascist ideology—have, if anything, always been at the heart of RSS’s priorities. Naqvi’s assertion that Hitler and Mussolini were the inspiration for RSS is a well-worn fallacy that has been repeatedly disproved but is still brought up by individuals with political frustrations. The accusations are the result of selectively misinterpreting words made by specific people while disregarding the broader context. Distorting historical facts to suit a convenient political narrative is the height of intellectual dishonesty. Unlike the Communist parties, which notoriously followed the Soviet line even at the expense of national interests, the RSS has no history of working with colonial or imperialist regimes. In 1942, the Communists fiercely opposed the Quit India Movement, calling it “subversive,” at the direction of their bosses in Beijing and Moscow. They weakened the quest for independence, whereas RSS struggled diligently at the grassroots level to foster cultural awareness and a sense of pride in the country. If the study of treachery is the goal, then the Communist parties—not RSS—need to be examined. Communists teaching about nationalism is blatantly ironic. Communists were involved in violent uprisings, such as the Telangana Rebellion, which aimed to impose a Soviet-style revolution in India, while the RSS was working to unite the nation. Naqvi romanticizes this uprising as a noble peasant battle, but in reality, it was a violent and terrifying war. Under the guise of “revolution,” the Communist objective has always been to sow disarray, erode democratic institutions, and open the door for authoritarian control. It should come as no surprise that democracy has always suffered the most when Communists have taken control, whether in North Korea, the USSR, or Maoist China. The people’s rejection of their outdated, foreign-imposed ideology is what is causing their electoral downfall in India, not any alleged “fascist” repression. Naqvi’s attempts to demonize the RSS and cover up the wrongdoings of Indian Communists are blatant examples of selective amnesia. The CPI’s record is marked by obvious blemishes, including its ideological subservience to foreign powers, its unwillingness to support the 1962 war effort against China, and its vacillations on important national challenges. On the other hand, RSS has supported Indian army in needs, increased disaster relief, and supported national defense. These are not theoretical claims; they are demonstrable realities. Naqvi, however, avoids them out of convenience since they contradict his rhetoric. It is a flagrant fabrication to say that RSS and its inspired individuals were “apologists for colonialism.” The Communist leadership frequently undermined nationalist initiatives and remained ambivalent about India’s independence. While RSS karyakartas were actively involved in opposing British rule. The goal of the RSS was to create a robust, independent society that could fend off colonial domination on all fronts—politically, culturally, and economically. The Communist concern with quick and frequently violent upheavals was always in conflict with these long-term objectives. If we look at Jawed Naqvi explicitly, his history of anti-Hindu and anti-Indian hatred is well known. His publications frequently echo the talking points of Pakistan’s official narratives, raising doubts about his integrity, ethics and journalism. His previous pieces, such as “Hindutva Terrorism: Another View” and “The Crooked Timber of Modi’s India,” all follow the same formula: they show Muslims as unforgiving victims, Hindus as aggressors, and India as a country on the verge of collapse. The outrage is blatantly selective. He highlights every perceived or actual weakness in India’s democracy, but he says nothing about Pakistan’s deep state, its persecution of minorities, or its decline into political and economic catastrophe. Naqvi’s most recent article is not a rare occurrence; rather, it is a component of a larger trend—a network of authors and journals that want to discredit India’s revival of civilization by calling it “fascist.” A typical example of projection is this one. Extremist Islamism and Communism, I call that Islamo-leftist, the exact ideologies Naqvi espouses, have committed some of the most horrific crimes in recorded history. More than 100 million people have died as a result of communism worldwide, and extremist Islamist beliefs have sunk entire

Security Terrorism

623

The Case Against Tahawwur Hussain Rana

Rahul Pawa Mumbai terrorist attacks, carried out between November 26 and 29, 2008, targeted prominent locations, including the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel, Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Terminus, and Nariman House. The attacks exposed the Pakistan Army’s use of asymmetrical warfare through terrorism and sparked international outrage. The United Nations-proscribed Pakistan-based terror organization Lashkar-e-Taiba orchestrated the assault, utilising reconnaissance conducted by David Coleman Headley, a Pakistani origin American terrorist and agent. Headley’s work was supported by Tahawwur Hussain Rana, who used his immigration consultancy as a front for surveillance activities. Rana, a former officer in the Pakistani Army, fled to the United States after deserting his post and later established an immigration consultancy in Chicago. Rana and David Coleman Headley, whose birth name is Daood Gilani, were childhood friends. This longstanding relationship formed the foundation of their collaboration in Lashkar-e-Taiba’s operations. Headley, an American citizen who became a radicalised terrorist, leveraged Rana’s connections with the Pakistan Army and its spy agency, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), to carry out reconnaissance missions in Mumbai. Headley’s dual role as an informer and an operative added complexity to the case. Rana, a Canadian citizen, was implicated as a facilitator who allowed Headley to use his immigration consultancy business as a front to secure visas and establish a cover in Mumbai. This association positioned both individuals as key conspirators—Rana as a Canadian terrorist and Headley as an American terrorist—in one of the most devastating attacks in modern Indian history. In 2011, Rana was tried in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on charges of conspiracy to provide material support to terrorism in India and a terror plot in Denmark and providing material support to a Pakistan based designated terrorist organization, Lashkar-e-Taiba. The jury acquitted him of charges related to the Mumbai attacks but convicted him on charges concerning the Denmark plot and material support to Lashkar-e-Taiba. Rana was sentenced to 14 years in prison, serving seven years before being granted compassionate release during the COVID-19 pandemic. India’s push for Rana escalated in December 2019 when it submitted a diplomatic note to the United States seeking his extradition. The charges outlined included conspiracy to wage war, commit murder, and carry out terrorist acts, alongside forgery and using falsified documents—offenses under India’s Penal Code and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. On May 16, 2023, a U.S. magistrate judge certified Rana’s extradition, rejecting his arguments under the Non Bis in Idem principle (double jeopardy) and affirming probable cause. Central to Rana’s defense was the claim that his extradition violated Article 6 of the 1997 U.S.-India Extradition Treaty. The principle prohibits extradition if the individual has been convicted or acquitted in the requested state for the same offence. Rana’s defense argued that the Indian charges overlapped with those addressed in his U.S. trial. However, the U.S. courts adopted an “elements-based” approach, analysing whether the legal elements of the Indian charges differed from those tried in the U.S. The Ninth Circuit emphasised the distinction between “offence” and “acts,” concluding that India’s charges involved unique elements, such as forgery related to the Reserve Bank of India application, which were not addressed in the U.S. proceedings. This interpretation aligned with prior jurisprudence, including Zhenli Ye Gon v. Holt, which distinguished between conduct and elements of a crime under treaty law. While India’s extradition request relied heavily on the testimony of David Headley, a self-confessed operative of Lashkar-e-Taiba. Rana’s defense attacked Headley’s credibility, citing his criminal background, ties to Pakistan’s ISI, and alleged manipulative tendencies. Nonetheless, the courts adhered to the limited scope of habeas corpus review in extradition cases, focusing solely on whether there was “any competent evidence” to support probable cause. The Ninth Circuit ruled that Headley’s testimony, corroborated by documentary evidence, met the requisite standard. On January 21, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed Rana’s petition for a writ of certiorari, marking the end of his legal battle against extradition. The denial upheld lower court rulings and reinforced the interpretation of the extradition treaty. U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar’s arguments played a pivotal role, highlighting that not all conduct underlying India’s charges was addressed in the U.S. trial, such as forgery-related offenses. For survivors and families of the 26/11 victims, Rana’s extradition symbolises a step toward justice. The attacks remain etched in India’s collective memory, and prosecuting those responsible—regardless of nationality—affirms the principle that terrorism knows no borders. Rana’s extradition also underscores the role of diplomacy in resolving complex legal cases. The US administration’s backing of India’s request reflects broader strategic ties between the two nations. Such cooperation sets a precedent for future extraditions in cases of global significance. The case against Tahawwur Hussain Rana exemplifies the interplay of law, geopolitics, and counter-terrorism. It highlights the challenges of prosecuting transnational crimes while adhering to principles of justice and treaty law. By affirming Rana’s extradition, the U.S. judiciary has reinforced the efficacy of extradition treaties as tools of international law, signalling that perpetrators of terrorism will face accountability, irrespective of borders. The case also serves as a poignant reminder of the enduring impact of the Pakistan Army and ISI backed Mumbai attacks and the global commitment required to combat terrorism, especially emanating from Pakistan. (Author is Research Director at Centre for Integrated and Holistic Studies, New Delhi based non-partisan think-tank)

Bangladesh Feature Post Hindus Human Rights Security

844

Hindu Genocide Unfolding in Bangladesh

The situation in Bangladesh has reached a critical and alarming juncture, with a systematic and coordinated campaign targeting the Hindu community through acts of violence, destruction, and terror. This genocide, characterized by the deliberate annihilation of Hindu religious and cultural sites, as well as the targeted killings and displacement of individuals, poses an existential threat to the Hindu population in Bangladesh. The interim government must act with urgency and decisiveness: deploying security forces to protect vulnerable communities, ensuring justice through swift prosecution of those responsible, and initiating a comprehensive restoration of destroyed religious and cultural heritage. Moreover, the government must engage with international bodies to secure support and demonstrate a commitment to protecting all citizens, ensuring that such atrocities never occur again. Immediate action is not only a moral imperative but also crucial for the preservation of Bangladesh’s core fabric. Updated – Hindu Genocide Unfolding in Bangladesh

Security

898

Lessons from Kargil Ignited India’s Defense Revolution

Rahul Pawa Under PM Modi’s leadership, lessons from Kargil have driven significant reforms in military, intelligence, border security, and indigenous manufacturing, ensuring a more resilient and self-reliant India. In the summer of 1999, several high-altitude regions of Ladakh, including Mushkoh Valley, Dras, Kargil, Batalik, Chorbat La, and Turtuk, became the epicentres of a fierce battle between India and Pakistan. What began as a surprising discovery of armed intruders on the Indian side of the Line of Control (LOC) swiftly escalated into a full-blown military standoff. Initially mistaken for insurgents, these infiltrators were soon identified as regular soldiers of the Pakistan Army in disguise. The ensuing hostilities, fraught with the threat of nuclear escalation, lasted for eleven tense weeks. The limited war-like standoff finally drew to a close on July 26, 1999, when India thwarted the intruders and won the war. Now, 25 years later, as India marks the anniversary of its resolute campaign to defend its motherland, the nation pays tribute to the 527 martyrs and over 1,100 wounded. However, this anniversary also serves as a catalyst for a new national security paradigm, shaped by the lessons learned on the battlefield. Even before the dust had settled on the graves of Pakistani soldiers in the highest reaches of the Himalayas—soldiers whom the Pakistan Army and their Islamic Republic refused to acknowledge—New Delhi, under the leadership of Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, planned a thorough investigation into the events leading up to and during the standoff. Within three days of the victory in Ladakh, the Indian government began “to examine the sequence of events and make recommendations for the future” by formally setting up the Kargil Review Committee (KRC). The committee, chaired by K. Subrahmanyam and including Lt. Gen. K.K. Hazari, B.G. Verghese, Satish Chandra, and National Security Advisor Brajesh Mishra, formally submitted is report on December 15, 1999, merely 5 months after a hard earned victory. Based on over a hundred interviews with senior military personnel, diplomats, intelligence officers, journalists, and politicians, the report offered recommendations on border management, civil–military liaison, counter-terrorist operations, defense budget and modernisation, LOC policy, nuclear policy, intelligence, media relations, the National Security Council, national security management, and technology. This year, in a speech delivered in Dras, Ladakh, during the 25th Kargil Vijay Diwas, Prime Minister Narendra Modi highlighted the strategic importance of the Agnipath scheme, drawing from the lessons of the 1999 battles in Ladakh. The initiative aims to revitalise the army by reducing the average age of its personnel through a four-year enlistment of young recruits, thus infusing the force with fresh energy and technical skills. An approach recommended in the KRC, which advocated for maintaining a youthful and fit army. Yet, this marks only the beginning of a broader wave of strategic, technical, and policy shifts inspired by the KRC’s findings and recommendations, with some measures already in place and others still underway. As part of the KRC’s robust recommendations for reform and modernisation, the Indian military embarked on extensive structural changes. This led to the appointment of the first Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), a position filled by General Bipin Rawat on December 24, 2019, under the PM Modi-led NDA government after two decades of deliberation. Aligned with the KRC recommendations, the Indian military underwent extensive modernisation and structural reforms. This included the creation of several tri-services organizations to enhance coordination and efficiency. Notably, the Integrated Defence Staff, Andaman and Nicobar Command, Nuclear Command Authority, Strategic Forces Command, and the Department of Ex-servicemen Welfare were established. Additionally, the Defence Technology Council and the Defence Acquisition Council were created to streamline technological advancements and procurement processes, reflecting the KRC’s emphasis on comprehensive technical reforms. Additionally, the Kargil Review Committee’s recommendations led to significant upgrades in border infrastructure and intelligence, addressing key issues revealed during the 1998-1999 Pakistani infiltration. Under National Security Advisor Ajit Doval, the establishment of the Multi-Agency Centre (MAC) and the Joint Task Force on Intelligence (JTFI) enhanced coordination. New airstrips and advanced landing grounds were developed to counter potential threats from China and Pakistan, significantly improving border security and readiness. Enhancing military preparedness has been another critical area significantly improved by the KRC’s findings and recommendations. Under the leadership of PM Modi and the NDA government, the adoption of advanced technologies, such as Chinook helicopters and upgraded airstrips, has notably boosted rapid force deployment capabilities. These advancements ensure that the Indian military can respond swiftly and effectively to threats. The success of Uri surgical strikes, Balakot Air strikes and decisive responses to People’s liberation Army (PLA) aggression in regions like Galwan and Pangong Tso further highlight India’s heightened state of readiness and strategic agility, demonstrating a robust defense posture that aligns with the KRC’s vision for a more secure and responsive military framework. In a fast-evolving globalised world, challenges like the ongoing Ukraine conflict and the escalating threat from Communist Party of China (CPC) showcase the need for a robust, indigenous defense supply chain. This necessity was also highlighted in 1999 when the U.S. denied India’s request for GPS data during the 1999 Ladakh aggression by Pakistan, prompting India to develop its own GPS system, the Indian Regional Navigation Satellite System (IRNSS), an autonomous satellite navigation system that provides accurate position information services to users in India and the surrounding region, covering up to 1,500 kilometres beyond India’s borders. Learning from these lessons, the 2020 “Atmanirbhar Bharat” initiative was launched to reduce reliance on foreign suppliers and foster self-sufficiency in defense production. This ambitious program aims to build a strong domestic defense manufacturing sector, ensuring India can independently meet its military needs. The initiative promotes research and development, encourages public-private partnerships, and incentivises domestic production of critical defense technologies and equipment. In the contemporary landscape, under PM Modi’s leadership, these measures reflect a broader strategic shift towards a more secure and resilient India, aligning with the foresight provided by the KRC report. The Indian government’s commitment to strengthening the nation’s defense capabilities is evident in various initiatives designed to

Geopolitics Hindus Human Rights Insurgency Security

702

China-Pakistan Agenda in Bangladesh Protests

Violent protests by students against job quotas may have been conveniently used by Beijing & Islamabad to further their interests Rahul Pawa China, Pakistan, geo-political interest groups and international stakeholders may have muddied Bangladesh waters. They may have either directly or indirectly contributed to current wave of violent protests that resulted in 130 fatalities. These players may have conveniently used the anger against quotas for government jobs as a cover to stroke flames of dissent against Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and her Awami League government. The current spate of violent incidents seems to have been triggered by Communist Party of China and Pakistan that have taken an adversarial position and spread discontent against Sheikh Hasina’s government. Protests erupted after Appellate Division of the Supreme Court decided on July 10, 2024 to maintain status quo on quota system intended for freedom fighters and their families for four weeks. This came after a High Court ruled on June 5, 2024 that declared 2018 government circular canceling 30 per cent quota for freedom fighter’s descendants in government jobs illegal. This sparked widespread anger among students and larger population, culminating in violent clashes and a death toll that continued to rise. Students from various universities in Dhaka united to demand quota reforms. After initial postponement owing to Eid and summer holidays, students movement resumed on July 1 with demonstrations. Students and teachers from public universities like University of Dhaka, Rajshahi University of Engineering and Technology and Jahangirnagar University, among others were soon joined by counterparts from private institutions such as North South University and BRAC University. Under the banner of Anti-discrimination Students Movement, they launched ‘Bangla Blockade’ (Bangladesh Shutdown) thereby disrupting domestic train and road transportation networks. Online activism surged with calls for “another 2018” in reference to previous quota reform movement. Subsequently, protestors call for a ‘Bangla Blockade’ intensified on July 7. As demonstrations spread nationwide, clashes with police on July 11 marked a significant escalation. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s remarks on July 14, referring to Razakars (Bangladeshis who collaborated with Pakistan during 1971war) made during a press conference after her return from China coupled with the ruling Awami League’s hardened stance intensified the situation. This led to violent suppressions by Chhatra League and resulted in hundreds of injuries. The kindling for this unrest had been laid well before the court’s ruling as flames were fanned earlier this month during Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s visit to Beijing from July 8 to 10, 2024. The visit, intended to secure significant financial aid and strengthen bilateral ties ended abruptly, hinting at Hasina’s deep-seated dissatisfaction with the Communist Party of China (CPC). China offered only $100 million in financial assistance, a far cry from the initially promised $5 billion. Adding to the discord, Xi gave Hasina very little time as Beijing proposed a controversial ten-year re-education policy aimed at countering Islamic culture and promoting Chinese lifestyles, similar to measures implemented in Pakistan during 2010. This proposal, perceived as racist and a direct affront to Bangladesh’s cultural sovereignty, significantly strained Dhaka – Beijing relationship. The protests in Dhaka quickly escalated as protesting students and citizens voiced their dissatisfaction with reinstated job reservation quota. This policy initially abolished in 2018 reserved 30 percent government jobs for families of 1971 independence war veterans. The new quota system, viewed as unreasonable and discriminatory, exacerbated existing frustrations amid high unemployment and rampant inflation. Pakistan-backed Islamist groups such as Jamat-e-Islami, which have significantly undermined Bangladesh’s private sector, exacerbating economic challenges the country already faces.This influence, funded by the Middle East via Pakistan, has made government jobs even more sought after. The resulting volatility in the private sector has created a hostile environment, where economic grievances easily morph into political unrest. This destabilising influence was earlier evident during the violent response to the Bangladesh government’s attempt to modernise labor laws in 2018. The proposed changes aimed to attract more foreign investment by aligning local labour practices with international standards. However, Islamist groups, heavily funded by Pakistan vehemently opposed these changes arguing they would undermine Islamic values and worker rights. Jamat-e-Islami with its significant political clout mobilised large-scale protests and strikes which paralysed many sectors of the economy including the vital garment industry. This unrest discouraged foreign investment and highlighted the fragility of private sector in the face of Islamist political and religious extremism. Moreover, China’s involvement in Bangladesh’s student unions further escalates the situation. Reports indicate that CPC has infiltrated Bangladesh universities through education and student exchange programmes. Five Chinese universities in Yunnan province alone teach Bangla language and culture, sending students to Dhaka to create intelligence assets and funding channels for student wings. This strategy aims to mobilise Bangladeshi students against their own government’s policies thereby creating more space for CPC influence. Notably, student unions that staunchly defended Islam in Bangladesh remained conspicuously silent on CPC policies against Uyghur Muslims. The current situation reiterates CPC’s potential to influence and organise student protests in Bangladesh. Earlier, on April 13, 2021, students gathered at the Dhaka Press Club, demanding better arrangements from Hasina Administration for studying in China. The protest pressuring the Bangladeshi government nearly turned violent, demonstrating CPC’s influence and capability to mobilise students in Dhaka, highlighting its broader strategy of using education and cultural programs as tools of influence. Moreover, China-Pakistan nexus in Bangladesh adds another layer of complexity. Pakistani students often affiliated with Jamat-e-Islami collaborate with their Bangladeshi counterparts facilitating communication and coordination for protests. The human intelligence (HUMINT) capacity of Pakistan’s ISI has been instrumental in channeling Chinese funds to stage ongoing protests in Dhaka. Bangladeshi workers in Chinese companies are reported to have been trained to mobilise pro-China rallies as seen in 2019 when workers of Jingjiu Group in Bangladesh who were seen chanting Pro-China slogans in Mandarin. Intriguingly, CPC’s interest in Bangladesh extends beyond financial aid. Beijing aimed to establish strong foothold in South Asia leveraging its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) aspiring to integrate Bangladesh into its economic sphere. Despite the disappointing loan offer, China has

Geopolitics Human Rights Pakistan Security

605

Pakistan Army At It Again!

Army Generals are out there with roaring business deals through land grabs in Gilgit Baltistan that smacks of spreading poverty. Arun Anand Pakistan Army is systematically acquiring land in Gilgit-Baltistan under guise of promoting Green Tourism. Green Tourism Limited, a new enterprise owned by Pakistan army, has secured long-term leases for 44 tourism sites in the region. Registered just before Pakistan’s February 8 elections under Special Investment Facilitation Council (SIFC), the move expands army’s commercial interests that already encompass gas stations, housing colonies and industrial units nationwide. Systematic land grab has sparked widespread discontent among locals that view tourism as a crucial means of their livelihood in the region under Pakistan’s controversial control. Groups like Majlis-e-Wahdatul Muslimeen (MWM), Awami Action Committee of Gilgit-Baltistan, and Das Khareem Supreme Council of Astore have vehemently opposed the move. Pakistani government claims that this initiative will attract local and foreign investment in tourism. But stakeholders in tourism doubt the actual deliverables behind the project. They see it as first step to transfer control of these sites to military entities and vested interests. ‘The Friday Times’ report said that 30-year leases include seven Pakistan Tourism Development Corporation (PTDC) motels, 20 guest houses managed by Communications and Works Department (C&WD) and 17 sites under Forest Department. This move exemplifies Pakistan Army’s expanding influence across various sectors of economy, raising concerns about its motives behind acquiring land. Implications for local communities and the region’s autonomy are manifold as the military’s involvement in tourism would lead to further militarization and economic marginalization of locals. The growing discontent and opposition from local representatives underscore risks associated with this initiative and its adverse impact on socio-economic fabric of Gilgit-Baltistan. A significant portion of Hoto Plantation, spanning 450 kanals and considered Skardu’s largest along with 55 kanals of Forest Park, the only public recreational area in Skardu, have been leased under controversial circumstances. Baltoro Guest House in Skardu that was hitherto used by visiting officials has been forcibly taken from Gilgit-Baltistan government. Bullying by Green Tourism Limited, a military-owned enterprise, in acquiring these properties is striking and an indication of how things would unfold in this region. Officials have been emphasizing that Pakistan’s tourism potential is valued at (‘inflated’) $30 billion. A spokesperson for Gilgit – Baltistan Chief Minister justified these strong-arm tactics and claimed that the acquired properties were financially unsustainable. The government argues that leasing them will enable renovation and development, making them profitable ventures. It’s proposed that 35 per cent of income generated will be set aside for Gilgit-Baltistan government and supplemented by 20 per cent annual rent from the properties. But, this claim is dubious and seems to be a cover-up for the military’s economic expansion. Additionally, it has been revealed that Green Tourism Limited has leased at least 17 motels of the Pakistan Tourism Development Corporation (PTDC) in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) for 30 years! Official documents show that this controversial outsourcing was carried out under Special Investment Facilitation Council (SIFC), a body seemingly designed to extend military’s economic influence. Pakistan Army’s relentless appropriation of public assets illustrates its unchecked authority and widespread influence. This aggressive takeover of land and resources, purportedly for economic growth and tourism improvement, risks deepening poverty and worsening food insecurity among the already struggling population. By displacing local governance and eroding regional autonomy, military’s incursion exposes a hidden agenda focused on consolidating military control and economic supremacy. Through systematic transferring control of valuable assets from civilians to Pak military, the latter is undermining economic foundations of local communities and perpetuating cycles of disenfranchisement and impoverishment. This dispossession and economic marginalization exacerbate socio-economic disparities, widening the gap between military elite and ordinary citizens. The broader implications are deeply concerning; militarizing economic resources disrupts local economies, diminishes community leadership, and deprives residents of their livelihoods. This appropriation of public and private assets not only hampers potential economic growth and development but also consolidates military’s grip on the nation’s wealth and resources. If this trajectory continues unabated, it forewarns profound socio-economic consequences. The weakening of local governance and consolidation of economic authority among military leaders are likely to provoke heightened social unrest, increased poverty, and exacerbated economic inequality. Pakistan Army’s relentless pursuit of land and resources undermines principles of fair development and democratic governance, posing a serious threat to Pakistani society. These aggressive land seizures and economic takeovers by military pose a significant risk to Pakistan’s socio-economic stability. The unchecked militarization of economic assets not only undermines local autonomy and governance but perpetuates cycles of poverty and exclusion. (Author is a senior journalist & columnist. He has authored more than a dozen books)

Geopolitics Leadership Policy Security

657

Refusal to Reform

Self-defeating journey that Pakistan embarked upon with Jihadist mindset has rendered Shimla agreement ineffective & unworkable. Rohan Giri Fifty two years back, Shimla accord inked on July 2, 1972 by then Bharat’s Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and Pakistan’s President Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, bears testimony to Islamabad’s refusal to learn its lessons. It’s also a missed timeframe for Pakistan for evolving as a well-meaning, affable and socio-economic development partner on western borders that Bharat was looking for. Partition of Bharat in 1947 by imperialist British forces on withdrawal mode inflicted a huge injury that cannot be easily forgotten. Instead of metamorphosing as a well-meaning society based on true Islamic values, it resorted to genocide of Bengali Hindus in East Pakistan in most inhuman way in 1971. Pakistan had to eat a humble pie after getting defeated at the hands of Indian army and consequent liberation of Bangladesh. Shimla agreement concluded in Barnes Court christened as Raj Bhavan today was intended at bringing about lasting peace in South Asia, especially Bharat and Pakistan. But, that did not happen as predicted even before ink on the Shimla agreement dried. Things did not work out as Sunni extreme leadership refused to acknowledge magnanimity of Bharat in returning their 93,000 war prisoners without a word. Questions were raised on intent of Smt Indira Gandhi who returned all major territories of Pakistan that came under Bharat fold in aftermath of the war. Intentions and goals articulated in Shimla Agreement were magnificent on paper but hollow in reality. Commitment to a direct, bilateral approach to problem solving, emphasis on face-to-face interactions, were laudable. Pakistan that had long history of deception and flopped promises saw the accord as a strategic pause rather than genuine peace initiative. Among Shimla Agreement’s six important clauses, pledge to observe Jammu and Kashmir’s Line of Control (LoC) was most significant. This was one commitment that Pakistan gravely breached very frequently. Disagreements were to be settled amicably and that no government would unilaterally change the status. This again was violated. The rogue state that it evolved to be, Pakistan, continued to fuel fires of turmoil, culminating in Kargil War in 1999. This blatant crossing of Line of Control served as vivid reminder that Pakistan had never genuinely embraced principles of the Shimla Agreement. The accord had highlighted mutual respect for one another’s geographical integrity and political independence. Pakistan, with its malicious intent and plan on Kashmir made attempts on several occasions to intervene in India’s domestic affairs, breaking the very foundation of the accord. The pledge to desist from hostile propaganda was a scam, as Pakistan’s official machinery continued to spew anti-India rhetoric, stoking hatred and division. Despite the Shimla Agreement, Pakistan’s conduct over the decades demonstrated its deceit. The Kargil conflict, in which Pakistani soldiers penetrated Indian territory along the LoC, was a clear act of aggression that shattered the already fragile agreement. This fight, which lasted for more than 60 days, exposed Pakistan’s true character, reinforcing its reputation as an untrustworthy neighbor. Indira Gandhi, acclaimed as a competent leader, was heavily criticized for signing the Shimla Agreement without achieving a resolution to the Kashmir conflict. The pact was viewed as a strategic failure, a concession that failed to capitalize on India’s resounding victory in the 1971 war. Pakistan’s claim to Kashmir, combined with its repeated efforts to internationalize the issue, have rendered the Shimla Agreement ineffective and meaningless. The Shimla Agreement’s history is one of unfulfilled promises and broken expectations. It underscored the futility of trusting a country that has repeatedly proven its propensity to destabilize peace for geographical advantage. Pakistan’s repeated betrayal, from the Kargil conflict to its current backing for cross-border terrorism, demonstrates that it never intended to comply with the Shimla Agreement. The agreement, while ostensibly a plan for peace, was a strategic failure that failed to address the two countries’ core challenges. It allowed Pakistan to recover and rearm, which eventually led to other instances of conflict. India’s generous gesture of returning POWs and territory was met with Pakistan’s unwavering enmity, demonstrating once more that Pakistan’s word could not be trusted. Finally, the Shimla Agreement, which was offered as a historic step toward peace and stability. Pakistan’s reluctance to respect its pledges, as well as its ongoing efforts to destabilize the region, have demonstrated that any agreement with such a nation is worthless. The Shimla Agreement serves as a clear reminder of the drawbacks of naive diplomacy as well as the importance of taking a hard stance when dealing with a fraudulent neighbor like Pakistan. (Author is a doctoral fellow at Amity University in Gwalior, content manager at Centre for Integrated and Holistic Studies)

Disinformation Geopolitics Hindus Human Rights Misinformation Security World

749

Testing Times in Canada

Trudeau regime will have to address core issue of terrorism to keep its relations with Bharat intact or face consequences. Pummy Pandita Eyebrows were raised when Canadian Parliament paid homage to Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a hardcore Pakistan-backed Khalistan terrorist and named in several anti-Bharat campaigns globally. One minute’s silence by Canadian Parliament members to Nijjar, a wanted criminal in Bharat, does not augur well either for bilateral relations or global campaign against terrorism of all shades and hues. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau seems to be playing with ‘Khalistani fire’ to stay in office and even sacrifice the strong and sound footed relations with India at the altar of preserving his political fiefdom with support from the extremist group. It’s not just one minute’s silence that matters! Trudeau hailing Nijjar ‘for his persistent efforts in advancing the diversity and inclusion ideals that Canada cherishes’ is something that’s gross and unpalatable. By buying peace with Khalistanis that campaign for a separate sovereign state which most Sikhs do not support, Trudeau exposed his political opportunism. He seems to have conveniently banked on anti-Bharat forces to portray himself as someone who genuinely cares about his country. In the process, Trudeau has succeeded in appeasing his political crutch group in Khalistanis and diverted attention from Canada’s burning issues. In fact, Indian-descent Member of Parliament Chandan Arya exposed the extremist role of Canadian Khalistani elements when Air India flight 182 was bombed midday 39-years back on June 23. Incidentally, this very day is remembered in Canada as National Day of Remembrance for victims of terrorism. In the mid-air bombing of Kanishka aircraft carrier 329 innocent lives including crew members was lost to terrorists that made Canada their home. Rightly so, Arya pointed to the ideology responsible for Kanishka attack that’s alive and kicking with a small chunk of Canadians. Recent celebration of Indian Prime Minister Smt Indira Gandhi is yet another incident where terrorism is glorified, violence mainstreamed, hate and violence eulogized. It also indicates that dark forces responsible for these terror events are getting regrouped and portends terrible events to come. Khalistan movement’s past is rife with murder and bloodshed. Tens of thousands of Hindus and Sikhs have been slaughtered by terrorists not just in India but in US, Australia, the UK, and Germany among others. People in Canada seem to have forgotten that tend to forget that 39 years ago when terrorists [Talwinder Singh Parmar (Canadian citizen), Inderjit Singh Reyat (held both British & Canadian citizenship), Ajaib Singh Bagri (US citizen), Ripudaman Singh Malik, Surjan Singh Gill, Hardial Singh Johal, Daljit Sandhu and Lakhbir Singh Rode (all Canadian citizens) bombed Air India flight. Regretfully, there are still locations in Canada where people who pray to these very terrorists as ‘demi-gods’. Gurpatwant Singh Pannun of Sikhs for Justice open threat to Hindu Canadians life is nothing but “glorification of terrorism” and acceptance of hate crimes under the pretext of “freedom of expression”. Canada has fallen under Trudeau’s gross mismanagement making it an extreme version of Pakistan. Canadian economy that was in shambles has not yet fully recovered. Meagre income that ordinary Canadians are able to earn is negated by inflation overhang that continues to roil the economy. Cost of living in Canada has about tripled in three years. Steep spike in housing rents left many individuals without a place to live. Over 40,000 people died in eight years due to drug overdose and the country is fast emerging as narco-terrorism hub. As Pakistan is falling Islamic terrorism, Canada has gone the Khalistani way.[1] Since his minority government depends on the backing of New Democratic Party led by Khalistani Jagmeet Singh, Justin Trudeau has gone his way. Trudeau, much like his alliance partner Jagmeet finds nothing wrong with pro-Khalistan operations being carried out on Canadian soil. Justin Trudeau’s open support to a terrorist such as Nijjar has given legitimacy to violence committed by the Khalistani groups in Canada. In addition to endangering security of Hindus residing in Canada, Trudeau has snatched rights of common Canadian citizens to profit from shifting geopolitical conditions. Trudeau, who claims Indian involvement in Nijjar’s murder, remained silent on Karima Baloch, an activist who fled persecution by Pakistani government and settled in Canada. Trudeau twiddled his thumb when opposition leader Michael Chong charged that he was being targeted by a Chinese diplomat. Canada’s evolution as a safe sanctuary for Pakistan-backed Khalistani terrorism is the result of Trudeau’s silence on legitimate interests of Canadian residents that he breaks only when one terrorist is killed as part of his vote-bank politics. Canada as a nation will now pay the price for appeasement of Khalistanis by its Prime Minister who is responsible from harbouring organised crime, help terrorists and criminals. Trudeau has isolated Canada from Western world. What a catastrophe! Indian is upset with Canadian theatrics. “India stands at the forefront of countering menace of terrorism and works closely with all nations to tackle this global threat. 23 June 2024 marks 39th Anniversary of cowardly terrorist bombing of Air India flight 182 (Kanishka) in which 329 innocent victims including 86 children lost their lives in one of the most heinous terror-related air disasters in history of civil aviation,” it said in a statement.[2] Canada’s unflinching support to anti-India forces may disturb the delicate applecart. Bracing up to fight terrorists of Khalistani or Islamist shades is in global interest. (Author is head of operations at Centre for Integrated and Holistic Studies, a non-partisan think tank based in New Delhi) References: [1] https://www.news18.com/opinion/opinion-canada-has-become-new-pakistan-thanks-to-trudeaus-soft-spot-for-khalistan-8585898.html [2] https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/india-marks-kanishka-flight-anniversary-as-canadian-parliament-honors-khalistan-terrorist-hardeep-singh-nijjar/articleshow/111110391.cms?from=mdr

Afghanistan Bangladesh Bhutan Geopolitics Leadership Nepal Policy Security Sri lanka Technology

1.16K

Bharat Goes Whole Hog in Neighbourhood

Stability, progress and growth is what Bharat seeks to achieve in South Asia through its ‘neighbourhood first’ policy Dr Divya Gupta Post-independence in 1947, Bharat pursued a regional policy based on the principle that neighbours are important to national security and a market that can contribute to India’s economic development. Given the bipolar world order that prevailed during Cold War, Bharat pursued non-alignment based on its stated global role as the third-world leader. India built her policy on the basis of “The Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence” (Panchsheel) which was first signed on April 28, 1954 between then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and his Chinese counterpart Zhou Enlai. Panchsheel covered issues like sovereignty and integrity, territorial integrity, no mutual aggression, non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, equality, mutual benefit and peaceful coexistence. Panchsheel agreement was considered one of the significant bases for building foreign policy with immediate neighbouring countries that India pursued after independence. But, Prime Minister Nehru was particularly interested in building and strengthening international cooperation especially among developing countries. Indian foreign policy during that period had focused more on international relations than neighbourhood relations. After end of Cold War, India made significant adjustments in her foreign policy framework owing to international, regional changes and internal challenges. Over the years, India has gradually come to occupy a significant role on strategic chessboard within the region and the world. A person who thought ahead about close relationship with neighbouring countries was former Prime Minister Inder Kumar Gujral, known for his Gujral doctrine, a policy orienting the relationship between India and its neighbours. Gujral doctrine was a policy that sought friendship based on sovereign equality and non-interference with “non-reciprocal magnanimity” towards smaller countries such as Bangladesh, Nepal, and Sri Lanka. The incumbent Prime Minister Narender Modi has formulated, followed and executed “neighbourhood first policy” in letter and spirit with respect to our immediate neighbours including Afghanistan. Essence of this policy is the desire to effectively contribute to the construction and architecture to establish a stable foundation of peace and cooperation in South Asia in particular and Asia in general as a responsible, stable and large country. Narendra Modi expanded the matrix of his foreign policy framework, took new line showing distinct imprint in his policies. He formulated his foreign policy doctrine (Modi doctrine) and introduced new pillars of India’s foreign policy (Panchamrit) including five pillars: dignity, dialogue, shared prosperity, regional and global security, cultural and civilization linkages aimed at affirming India’s position as a rising power in the world. During high-level discussion at 69th session of United Nations General Assembly in September 2014, Prime Minister Modi said, “The destiny of a country is linked to its neighbourhood. That is why my government has placed the highest priority on advancing friendship and cooperation with neighbours” (Modi 2014). He argued that “neighbours are the number one priority” which is considered a bright spot in India’s foreign policy. India’s ‘Neighbourhood First policy’ guides its approach towards management of relations with countries in its immediate neighbourhood, i.e. Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. The policy is based on the idea that a stable and prosperous neighbourhood is essential for Bharat’s economic and security interests. The Neighbourhood First Policy is also part of Bharat’s larger vision of becoming a leading power in the region and world. India’s Neighbourhood First policy can also be seen as a manifestation of Modi government’s vision of building ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (the world as one family). Vaccine diplomacy and development assistance based on mutual respect and equal partnership are two most important pillars to catapult India’s Neighbourhood First policy[i]. Vaccine diplomacy has been seen as pragmatic response to a global pandemic and way to strengthen its image as a responsible leader at both regional and global levels. Noteworthy, Indian diplomacy, particularly during the Covid-19[ii] pandemic, resulted in India being recognised on the world stage as a harbinger of hope providing necessary help to needy nations and their people globally. As part of India’s Neighbourhood First policy, India, through its vaccine diplomacy (Vaccine Maitri)[iii], extended help to many countries of the world and neighbouring countries during the Covid-19 pandemic. Also, and notwithstanding that India was affected very badly, particularly during the second wave, India handled the situation very well to overcome the worst effects of the pandemic relatively, and at the same time, help other countries to address the challenge. Primary beneficiaries of Vaccine Maitri in South Asian region are Bangladesh (Rs 22.5928 million in total supplies in the form of commercial and grant assistance, followed by Nepal (Rs 9.499 million); Sri Lanka (Rs 1.2640 million); Afghanistan (Rs 1.4680 million); Bhutan (Rs 0.55 million) and Maldives (Rs 0.312 million). India committed $10 million to South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) Fund to address the global pandemic. Keeping with the spirit of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, India is providing support to Afghanistan and Sri Lanka to address their myriad challenges through its development assistance initiative. Since the Taliban assumed charge in Afghanistan, India supplied wheat and other essential food items and Covid-19 vaccines as humanitarian aid to Afghanistan. In its budget for 2022-23, India allocated Rs 2,000 million as development assistance to Afghanistan. Apart from this India also provides financial assistance to neighbouring countries through Lines of Credit (LoCs), Grant-in-aid, Credit Facility, Currency Swap Facility and others. India has extended four Lines of Credit worth US $ 7.862 billion to Bangladesh under Indian Development and Economic Assistance Scheme (IDEAS). India also supports Bangladesh in several developmental and infrastructure projects across sectors such as roads, highways, railways, ports, power transmission, waste management, economic zones, information and communication technology, solar power generation etc. India has also provided Rs. 45,000 million as development assistance for 12th Five Year Plan (November 2018-October 2023) to Bhutan. India has extended five LoCs totalling to US $ 1.33 billion[iv] to Maldives including assistance to Greater Male Connectivity Project. India has provided budgetary support to Maldives. In September 2020, India offered US $ 250 million in financial assistance to Maldives to mitigate the impact

Leadership Policy Security

668

Bharat’s Security Prowess Unsettles West-Centric Global Security Dynamics

Unsubstantiated allegations and politicised narratives not only strain diplomatic ties but also detract from the collaborative efforts needed to combat global terrorism effectively. Rahul PAWA / @imrahulpawa Over the past year, Bharat has found itself at the epicentre of Western allegations, coupled with old friend camaraderie with Pakistani generals accusing Indian officials of undermining the sovereignties of nations by purportedly engaging in the termination of terrorists in Canada, the United States, and Pakistan. This intimidating interest in alleged Indian clandestine security operations, raises pivotal questions about the underlying motives and the broader global dynamics at play. Concurrently, it signals Bharat’s ascendance in the realm of global security as a revitalised and influential force, unsettling the traditional West-centric world order. In an era where the global threat landscape is increasingly complex, global and interconnected, Bharat’s extraordinary criminal justice measures to neutralize terrorists over the past decade—such as the 29 September 2016 surgical strike on terrorist launchpads across the Line of Control in Pakistan Occupied Indian territory of Jammu Kashmir, and the 2019 airstrike on the Jaish-e-Mohammed training camp in Balakot, Pakistan—are particularly significant. Under the leadership of Indian Prime Minister Modi, these operations had shed the ‘outdated and reluctant’ image of Indian security agencies of the past, showcasing new Bharat’s capability and resolve. The operations were conducted with a notable degree of professionalism, responsibility and transparency, as the Indian PM informed Pakistani counterparts prior to disclosing them to the world. These actions not only announced Bharat’s arrival as a formidable security force, but also challenged the traditional West-centric world order. Recent Western allegations, devoid of substantive evidence as seen in opinion heavy reporting of ‘The Guardian’ claiming Bharat’s role in tens of terrorist terminations in Pakistan, a covert unseen Five Eyes network intelligence report regarding the killing of Canadian terrorist Hardeep Singh Nijjar and subsequent local vote-bank influence as evidenced in Canada, along with the case involving alleged attempted assassination of Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, the US-based face of the proscribed terrorist entity SFJ, appear to be part of a broader strategy aimed at exerting collective pressure and undermining Bharat’s assertive stance against terrorism. Bharat which has long been a victim of cross-border terrorism orchestrated by Pakistan and its extensive global terror network, which includes Canadian and American terrorists. Canadian terrorists like Talwinder Singh Parmar of Babbar Khalsa masterminded the 1985 bombing of Air India Flight 182, claiming 329 innocent lives. Similarly, American terrorists like David Coleman Headley and his Canadian accomplice Tahawwur Rana played pivotal roles in the dastardly 2008 Mumbai attacks by Lashkar-e-Taiba, resulting in 175 deaths and over 300 injuries. More recent attacks, such as the 2016 Uri assault by Pakistan-backed Jaish-e-Mohammed, which killed 19 Indian soldiers and injured 30, and the 2019 Pulwama suicide bombing by Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba, which took the lives of over 40 Indian police personnel, underscore the persistent threat Bharat faces. In this context, Bharat’s measures acknowledged criminal justice measures like listed above to protect itself are not only moral and lawful but also a national security imperative. However, the coordinated western and Pakistani allegations involving unravellings like Nijjar’s assassination in Canada, an attempted assassination of Pannun, and tens of terrorist assassinations in Pakistan appear more fixed at challenging the newfound capabilities of Bharat’s security apparatus under Prime Minister Modi. This stance appears discordant with traditional security superpowers that often perceive national security as their exclusive domain. Most importantly, Bharat’s strategic partnerships with various nations, including those in the West, are built on mutual respect and shared interests. These alliances are grounded in a mutual commitment to promoting global stability, economic development, and security. However, for these relationships to thrive and be truly effective, they must be free from unwarranted accusations and intimidation that can undermine trust and cooperation. Unsubstantiated allegations and politicised narratives not only strain diplomatic ties but also detract from the collaborative efforts needed to combat terrorism effectively. By fostering an environment of mutual trust and respect, Western nations and Bharat can work together to dismantle terrorist networks, prevent radicalisation, and enhance global security. In conclusion, it is imperative that Western nations avoid actions that could be perceived as coercive or dismissive of Bharat’s security concerns. Instead, they should prioritize engagement that is based on equality, respect, and a shared commitment to eradicating terrorism. By doing so, they not only reinforce their alliances with Bharat but also bolster the collective ability to address and overcome the multifaceted challenges posed by terrorism in the 21st century. It is time for the international community to support Bharat’s efforts to create a secure and stable world, acknowledging that a strong and secure Bharat is beneficial for global peace and prosperity. (Author is Director – Research at New Delhi based think tank, Centre for Integrated and Holistic Studies)

Blog Post