Many years ago, in a conversation between Mr. Jinnah and the British author Beverley Nichols, the economic and defence consequences of partition were discussed. I don’t know whether this conversation took place after the rejection of ‘Cabinet Mission Plan’, put forward by Britain to Hindu leadership and Muslim leadership in undivided India led by Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah. The ‘Cabinet Mission Plan’, put forward by the Cabinet Mission was accepted by Muslim League and rejected by Congress, closing the door for a United India forever. At page 95 of the Myth of Independence, the author writes about the mentioned conversation as under:
“JINNAH (with some heat). The man who makes such a suggestion must have very poor opinion about British intelligence, apart from his opinion of my integrity. The one thing which keeps the British in India, I repeat, is a British Creation- a myth, and a very dangerous myth, which will call endless strife. As long as that strife exists, the British have an excuse for remaining. For once in a way, ‘divide and rule’ does not apply.
SELF. What you want ‘divide and quit’?
JINNAH. You have put it very neatly.
SELF. You realize that all this will come as something of a shock to the British electorate?
JINNAH. Truth is often shocking. But why this truth in particular?
“The British have an excuse for remaining does not apply. What you ‘divide and quit’,” is pertinent.
British were made to quit but having reduced Pakistan to a still born baby through Radcliff, and leaving Palestine in turmoil in 1948(after signing Balfour Declaration with Jewish leadership in 1917 when German Army in world war first had gained clearly an upper hand against allies) provided them a huge excuse for ‘remaining’ here as well as in Palestine/Israel land till such time, in Israel the Jews attained upper hand through USA. In Pakistan we had no power like the USA at our back. Almost every country with the blessings of Israel too, is at the back of India. The fact can be discerned by anybody by just taking a look at the TV screens for some time. So what is the answer? Having created the Kashmir issue the Britain had created reason enough to show its presence in the subcontinent, after plundering the ‘Two Nation Theory’, the criteria set forth for partition.
At the time of partition the State of Jammu and Kashmir, popularly called simply Kashmir, had an overall Muslim majority of 78 percent. Other factors too linked Kashmir closely to Pakistan. (Pakistan’s Foreign Policy-An Historical Analysis by M. Burke. P. 18). Thanks to Sir Radcliff who stabbed the Kashmiri Muslims in the back. India filed a formal complaint against Pakistan in the Security Council on 1 January 1948, under section 35 of chapter VI which relates to ‘Pacific Settlement of Disputes’, and not under chapter VII which deals with acts of aggression. The Kashmiris were required to ‘exercise their right to self determination under UN auspices’. Pakistan accepted every proposal put forward by every UN representative for the resolution of the problem whereas India rejected each unequivocally. As far Jinnah, he said India and Pakistan will proclaim a ‘Monroe Doctrine’ of their own, for the defence of subcontinent against all outsiders. Pakistan even offered ‘joint defence’ to Nehru in 1962 but Nehru rejected Ayub Khan’s offer. From Dr. Frank Graham to own Dixon, in 1958, Pakistan accepted every proposal put forward by the UNSC representatives, whereas India rejected each one of them. It may be recalled that Quaid-e-Azam did not like the Britain have a hand in any matter between India and Pakistan, after 14/15 August 1947 but they contrived to ensure their hand and presence both in the Subcontinent and Palestine. Was it meant by Britain to make a come back following the guidelines of Clive? Britain taught the US in 1946/47, how to handle Indian and Pakistani leadership.
Indo-Israeli relations and its impact on foreign policy should be understood in the context of following factors. First, Pakistan and Israel are the only two countries which were formed on religious grounds at the same time. Both countries fought numerous wars to save their independence and to preserve their status. Yes, India and Israel both have to implement UNSC Resolutions of 1947-48 in the case of India and that 1967 in the case of Israel. But both India and Israel have different reasons for the same. Israeli came back after two millennia whereas Muslims were there in India ruling it since 712 AD. Islam came 600 years after Romans had pushed out across the world all the twelve tribes of Jews. If America can be a legitimate owner of West Indian’s America and Australia that of the Aborigine’s, why not others? Did Jews and Muslims not rule Spain together in ideal understanding for each other for about 800 years upto 1492 and did they not suffer together at the hands of Isabelle and king Ferdinand, after the decline of Muslim Spain?
Coming to one of the greatest catastrophes in NE of NWFP and capital of AK, Pakistanis askance about the emergence of this most unthinkable epicentre. O God Help us- such utter anguish. However the greatest of all is this magnificent impulse that has gripped the young ones in particular. The way they raised to occasion reminds one of 1965. When President Ayub Khan addressed the nation on radio, saying “The Indians don’t know what kind of people they have taken on”! Only a man like Altaf Gauhar could compose a sentence like that. This sentence galvanized the nation to an unprecedented heights.
(ZARA NAM HO TO YEH MATTI BARI ZARKHEZ HAI SAAQI!)
This time TV screen did the job. We need to channelize these emotions constructively. Leadership must display personal example. Demand and Supply: Are tents being made in this country not being sold twice the price of what was there before 8 Oct 2005? It is own country! Similarly, inflation has attained new heights. In Sep 1965, India was running form pillar to post in UNSC for clinching a ‘cease fire’ with Pakistan, because of Chinese ultimatum. Whatever, was gained in New York was all drained out by Ayub Khan with Shahabuddin and Mr. Farooq in Tashkent. President Ayub twirled his moustache and flew back. On arrival, when Bhutto was asked, he replied: ask him, and with that he flew to Larkana. The Army was out on internal security duties because of widespread demonstrations against Ayub Khan. Alas, after that he fell sick and did not stay long, with peace of mind in the chair.
Indira Gandhi, the gold medalist claiming to have dismembered Pakistan was killed by her own guard with showers of bullets. At this very moment sky rocketing prices of the items of daily use are causing the effect of terrorism. And those who consider it ‘supply and demand opportunity’, must wake up before it is too late for them. It is for the leadership to rise above itself, unite like an iron fist and make the best of the opportunity. Last but not the least the leadership must educate people as to how a least expected place can offer itself for an epicentre, and what could be the consequences for it for an ally outside NATO!
There are staggering reports rampant around about unbridled corruption, abduction, particularly that of children and hoarding of the relief goods by goonda elements. Transparency must be ensured by the civil servants, local administration and police, to avoid and ensure that nothing boomerangs.

E-mail: mzamanmalik19@hotmail.com

Indo-Bhutan relations
Sobia Nisar

Recorded historic relations between Bhutan and India date back to 747 A.D., when the Indian saint Padmasambhava introduced Buddhism in Bhutan, which has since then permeated all aspects of Bhutanese life. Aside from imposed Indian cultural and religious heritage over Bhutan, other areas of interaction developed during the British rule in India, included several Anglo-Bhutanese skirmishes and battles that were consequently followed by treaties and agreements. It was within this period of interaction with the British that trade between Bhutanese and Indians was also recorded to have taken place for the first time (1873).
China’s invasion of Tibet (1910-12) and subsequent claims made on Bhutan resulted in the signing of the Treaty of Punakha in 1910 with British India. The treaty did not define Bhutan’s status technically or legally. This was a source of uncertainty over Bhutan’s relations with India at the time when British rule was nearing an end. After India’s independence in 1947, standstill agreements with Sikkim, Nepal and Tibet were signed to continue existing relations until new agreements were made. For Bhutan, its status became clearer following Nehru’s invitation for a Bhutanese delegation to participate in the Asian Relations Conference in 1947. Following this, the negotiation for an Indo-Bhutan Treaty started in the summer of 1949. The basis for bilateral relations between India and Bhutan was formed by the Indo-Bhutan Treaty of 1949, which provides for “perpetual peace and friendship and equal justice to each other’s citizens.” The Article 2 in the Treaty, in principle pledges India’s noninterference in Bhutan’s internal affairs.
The geopolitical scene in the entire Himalayan region and Indian sub-continent underwent great change following the proclamation of the People’s Republic of China in 1949 and the takeover of Tibet by the People’s Liberation Army in 1950. These events, plus annexation of Bhutanese enclaves in Tibet and Chinese claim, all led Bhutan to re-evaluate its traditional policy of isolation; the need to develop its, lines of communications with India became an urgent necessity. India, aspiring to become a regional hegemonic power took advantage of the situation. Since then, Indian efforts concentrated to browbeat Bhutan into submission as a satellite state and play up the contrast provided by the balanced China-Bhutan bilateral relations. For India’s own security too, the stability of Himalayan states falling within its strategic interest was a crucial factor to consider. With border tensions between India and China escalating into military conflict in 1962, India could not afford Bhutan to be a weak but for buffer state or “extended frontier” with China.
Issues of Concern
Indo-Bhutan issues such as the state of relations with China continue to be a cause of concern to both countries. Considering the importance of Bhutan’s economic relations with India, the liberalization policies in India and its implications for Bhutan is an additional development to take into account. More recently, the illegal presence of militants using India as a base and hideout while rebelling against the Bhutan government resulted in the Bhutanese army taking military action to flush out the insurgents.
In light of the contentious state of Indo-China relations, it is no secret that Bhutan with its strategic location figures into India’s security interests. Therefore, whatever course Indo-China relations may follow in the future, it is likely that these bear implications for Indo-Bhutan relations as well. It may not be realistic to expect that Indo-China relations will normalize in the immediate future. In the long term, normalization in Indo-China relations and consequently, the degree to which strategic considerations influence India’s policy towards Bhutan is a possibility that should be considered. Even as current Indian geo-political and geo-economic game ensures that India will continue to be one of the most critical, hegemonic element in Bhutan’s foreign relations, Bhutan has to consider the reality of maintaining close ties with China. As such, Bhutan maintaining friendly relations with China without undermining its own relations with India is a challenge considered by the Indians.
Up until the 1990s, Bhutan has enjoyed more or less protected status in its trade relations with India. With economic liberalization on the rise in India, however, Bhutan is facing a gradual loss of this status. Bhutan has already felt the impact of the reform in India’s subsidy policies that has resulted in a gradual phasing out of subsidies and decrease in its budget for assistance to Bhutan. Bhutan is also forced to face the effects that would be brought on by India gradually moving toward privatizing its power, petroleum and other traditional public sectors. Over the last decade or so, the fighting between North East Insurgent groups (like ULFA, National Democratic Front of Bodos NDFB, Kamtapuri Liberation Organization KLO) and Indian security forces has been a matter of concern and security threat for Bhutan. In addition to hampering businesses and the implementation of development activities in many parts of the country, the on-going fighting was a potential cause of concern for Bhutan.
According to observers, India being a bigger and powerful country is breathing heavy on the neck of South Asian states. Indian policy makers should adopt a policy of ‘live and let live’ with her South-Asian neighbours. Instead of aspiring for regional and economic hegemony and disrupting peace in the region, the Indian government should firstly put an end to the misperception that smaller neighbours hold against Delhi. Delhi should realize that smaller neighbours cannot benefit themselves by creating competitive situation with bigger neighbours; Similarly India cannot take the center stage in the world scenario without taking peripheral nations with her. Thus, India should adopt a policy of cooperation, not hegemony or competetion with her smaller neighbours like Bhutan.

Nobel prize for El-Baradei
Hassan Tahsin
 
Guaranteeing peace and security to all the people of the world is one of the greatest dreams of the modern civilization. The Noble Prize for Peace was instituted for appreciating and encouraging the efforts of an individual or organization to promote the idea of peace on an international level. The committee awarding the prize will have to consider various factors before identifying the most deserving person or organization for the coveted honor. Last month the Nobel Peace Prize Committee awarded the prize for the year 2005 to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and its Director General Dr. Mohamed Mustafa El-Baradei.
Baradei is the second Egyptian to win the Nobel Prize for Peace after President Anwar Sadat who won the honor in 1978 in recognition of his contribution to the Middle East peace by signing a peace agreement with Israel. The other Egyptians to win the Nobel prizes were Naguib Mahfouz for literature in 1988 and Dr. Ahmad Zawel for chemistry in 1999. Briefing the media, the Norwegian Nobel committee said that the prize has been awarded to IAEA and its director general in recognition of their tireless efforts to guarantee that atomic energy was used only for peaceful purposes in a risk-free manner and it is not diverted to military fields. They were selected from 199 individuals and organizations. The committee noted that the atomic watchdog and its director general have been working without fear or favor.
Everyone need not agree with the decision of the Nobel committee or appreciate its action. However the choice has been welcomed by most countries and organizations in the world. This is not to forget that some doubts over El-Baradei’s worthiness for the prestigious honor has been raised by some quarters. The opposition is largely motivated by political considerations. One of the first critics was the Japanese nominee for the prize, Shanji Ya Majoshi, one of the few survivors of Nagasaki that along with Hiroshima was the target of the devastating American atom bomb attacks on Japan at the end of World War II. He blamed the Nobel committee for sidestepping him for fear of inviting the wrath of America which considers itself the sole power responsible for the control and distribution of nuclear warheads.
At about this time the British newspaper Independent published an article on the past winners of the peace prize with the comment that El-Baradei is the man who challenged Bush and won. Washington was very much against extending the term of El-Baradei as IAEA director general. Renewal of his term is considered a slap on the face of the US president. The newspaper further said that El-Baradei had dared to declare that the US justification to invade Iraq was false. The British newspaper added that the recognition of International Atomic Energy Agency and its director general by the Nobel authorities amounts to a warning to George Bush and Tony Blair against launching another war on flimsy grounds, this time against Iran.