Sectarianism in Khurram Agency
Ibn ul Hasan Shah

KURRAM Tribal Agency is one of the most scenic and picturesque valley of Federally Administered Tribal Area (FATA) of Pakistan, having the geographic distinction of sharing a border with Afghanistan on three sides. The area forming the present day Kurram Agency was a part of Afghanistan before the Second Afghan War of 1878-79. The Kurram Valley got their independence in 1880, however, the administration was undertaken by the British government in 1890 not as a British district, but as a loosely administered area. In Lord Curzon’s reorganization of the frontier in 1900-1901, the British troops were withdrawn from the forts in the Kurram Valley, and were replaced by the Kurram militia, reorganized in two battalions, and chiefly drawn from the Turi tribe. Kurram Agency is the only tribal region in the country’s semi-autonomous seven tribal territories which has a large number of Shiites - the rest of the six tribal agencies are overwhelmingly inhabited by Sunni Muslims. According to official figures, its total population is 500,000, with 58 percent Sunni and 42 percent Shiite. The majority of the Shiites live in the upper part of the Kurram Agency, while Sunnis inhabit lower and central Kurram. The population of Kurram valley consists of a number of tribes, namely Turi, Bangash, Parachamkani, Massozai, Alisherzai, Zaimusht, Mangal, Kharotai, Ghalgi and Hazara. There was also a sizeable sikh population but most of them have left the valley. The multi-ethnic communities share common cultural, linguistic and historical heritage, but due to a history of sectarian violence the cities are bifurcated according to sect, and there are no longer any mixed localities.
Sectarian violence is not a new phenomenon in Kurram Agency where well over 4000 people have been killed in clashes between the Sunni and Shia tribes since the decade of 1980s. However, the clashes going on for nearly two years have become more alarming because of the reported involvement of Taliban in the ongoing violence. Parachinar and the agency were predominantly Shia until a large influx of Sunnis started with the US-Russia war in Afghanistan, when the Mujahideen used it to raid Afghanistan. With the rise in Sunni numbers, there was also a rise in sectarian violence. When the US pressurized the Taliban in Afghanistan, they moved to the adjoining Tribal Areas of Pakistan and re-grouped and re-organized there. Now, resurgent for the eighteen months or so, they have been building up their presence in Swat, Bajaur, Khyber, Dara Adam Khel and the suburbs of Peshawar. It was this resurgence coupled with their desire for an alternate route into Afghanistan that has made the Taliban interested in Parachinar. In recent years the Kurram Valley has once again assumed a very strategic position and has been an area of intense military activity between the Taliban and American and allied forces. The fresh violence had been engineered by Al Qaeda in order to divert the attention of the Pakistan army from its on-going operations against the jihadis in the Swat Valley. The violence between Sunni Bangash and Shia Turi tribesmen has plagued the agency bordering Afghanistan for one and a half years. As many as 900 people have been killed in the sectarian violence in Kurram Agency since April last year. Land routes to most parts of the Kurram valley have been cut off from the rest of the country, triggering a severe shortage of food and medical supplies. People coming to Peshawar have been forced to travel via the Paktia province of Afghanistan. In December, 2007, there was a fresh flare-up of clashes between the Shia Turi tribals and Sunni tribals belonging to al Qaeda and the newly-formed Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). Some leaders of the Shiite community have blamed the Sunni Taliban and al-Qaeda-linked foreign militants in the tribal region for the latest wave of violence in Kurram.
While condemning violence in Khurram Agency, Pakistan religious leaders foresee a conspiracy to ignite the fire of sectarianism meant to destabilize Pakistan. The people of the area urged to foil the designs of those elements who are trying to divide Muslims of Kurram Agency. Islam is a religion of peace and there is no room in it for anyone to impose his “brand of religion” on others. The only way forward is to promote the true Islamic values of accommodation, tolerance and peace and ignore those out to spread darkness, narrow mindedness, extremism and intolerance. These forces are presenting a warped image of Islam and are thereby damaging it enormously. It is matter of immense concern that why these values of forgiveness, patience and tolerance have vanished from the society. The pathway out of the current predicament is to open the issue for stakeholders’ debate and let the political leaders to address the real issues facing the people through constructive dialogue. In this connection, a 100 member grand jirga of Kurram Agency has brokered a peace deal between warring sectarian groups in the region. Under the agreement, the two sides agreed to: (1) Exchange kidnapped people (2) Reopen all roads to ensure supply of foodstuff, medicines and other essential items. (3) Allow the displaced people to return to their villages. (4) Bunkers would be vacated and handed over to the Frontier Corps. (5) A fine of Rs 60 million will be imposed for any violation of the agreement. The tribal elders promised to cooperate with the government in maintaining peace.
The Government is earnestly endeavouring to resolve the sectarian issue and bring the Tribal Areas at par with other four provinces of the country with special focus on education, developmental work, political stability, and pro-poor policies. The armed clashes in Kurram Agency are not sectarian but some hidden external hands are involved in the conflict. Miscreants and militants are the main factors for resurgence of violence in Kurram agency. The people of Kurram agency are fully aware of the fact that the war in the area is not in their interest. The Government should curb the activities of conspirators and save Parachinar from becoming an incubator and a launching pad for sectarian violence all over Pakistan.

Myth of accession
Amjed Jaaved


KASHMIR is a simmering cauldron. For about six decades, India has denied Kashmiris’ their right of self—determination. India claims that the occupied Kashmir’s constituent assembly has voted for accession to India. As such, it is no longer necessary for her to let the promised plebiscite be held in Kashmir. Is India’s argument tenable? Does history or documents corroborate India’s stand? Let us look more closely at India’s stance. It is the Treaty of Amritsar (1846) which entitled Gulab Singh to rule Jammu and Kashmir State. This treaty stands lapsed under Article 7 of the Independence Act. The Act was passed by British Parliament on July 18, 1947 to assent to creation of independent states of India and Pakistan. The aforementioned Article 7 provides that, with lapse of His Majesty’s suzerainty over Indian states, all treaties, agreements, obligations, grants, usages and sufferance’s will lapse.
Mountbatten deliberately kept mum about this reality for considerations of political expediency. He was not ‘politically naive, much less a fool’ not to realise this truth. According to his biographer, Ziegler, Mountbatten had a ‘powerful, analytic mind of crystalline clarity’. Yet, he had ‘legendary capacity for self-deception’. He ‘was a man who preferred falsehood to truth’. Even the ‘Instrument’ of Accession is void for several reasons. The Independence Act required intention of accession to be absolute and crystal-clear. But, a stray glance at the ‘Instrument’ would make it clear that it is equivocal. The ‘Instrument’ expresses ‘intention to set up an interim government and to ask Sheikh Abdullah to carry the responsibilities’ with maharajah’s prime minister. The last sentence in the ‘Instrument’ is ‘In haste and with kind regards’. Handwritten corrections on the text of the ‘Instrument’ speak volubly about the wavering state of the maharajah’s mind. The instrument, extracted under coercion and duress, is invalid under law.
Subsequent accession resolution, passed by the occupied Kashmir’s ‘constituent assembly’ is also void. This resolution violates the Security Council’s resolutions forbidding India from going ahead with the accession farce. Aware of India’s intention to get the ‘Instrument of Accession’ rubber-stamped by the puppet assembly, the Security Council passed two resolutions to forestall the `foreseeable accession’ by the puppet assembly. Security Council’s Resolution No 9 of March 30, 1951 and affirmative Resolution No 122 of March 24, 1957 outlaws accession or any other action to change status of the Jammu and Kashmir state. India gives the impression that the USA considers the state’s so –called accession as legal. This is not true. On October 28, 1993, Robin Raphel, in her statement, clarified that Washington does not recognise the Instrument of Accession to India. In its perception, Kashmir was a disputed territory, not an integral part of India. The future status of the state remained to be determined in accordance with the wishes of the people of Kashmir.
We hear echo of Raphel’s statement in the resolution passed by International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), based in Geneva. The Commission pointed out that the resolution, passed by occupied-Kashmir legislature concerning Kashmir’s accession to India was bogus and null and void. Renowned journalist Alastair Lamb also regards the Instrument of Accession, ‘signed’ by the maharajah of Kashmir on October 26, 1947, as fraudulent (Kashmir - A disputed legacy 1846-1990). She argues that the maharajah was travelling by road to Jammu (a distance of over 350 km). How could he sign the instrument while being on the run for safety of his life? There is no evidence of any contact between him and the Indian emissaries on October 26, 1947.
Actually, it was on October 27, 1947 that the maharajah was informed by MC Mahajan and VP Menon (who had flown into Srinagar) that an Instrument of Accession is being fabricated in New Delhi. Obviously, the maharajah could not have signed the instrument earlier than October 27, 1947. The instrument remains null and void, even if the maharajah had actually signed it. The reason, as pointed out by Alastair is that the `signatures’ were obtained under coercion. Under law, any undertaking secured through coercion or duress is null and void. She points out Indian troops had already arrived at and secured Srinagar airfield during the middle of October 1947. On October 26, 1947, a further airlift of thousands of Indian troops to Kashmir took place. She questions: “Would the maharajah have signed the Instrument of Accession, had the Indian troops not been on Kashmiri soil?”
It is eerie to note that India has never shown the original `Instrument’ in any international forum. If India was truthful, it should have the temerity to present the document to Pakistan or to the UN. Isn’t it funny that, in the summer of 1995, the Indian authorities reported the original document as lost or stolen? This fact further beclouds authenticity of the document. India took the Kashmir issue to the UN in 1948 under article 35 of Chapter VI which outlines the means for a peaceful settlement of disputes. India avoiding presenting the Kashmir case under the UN Chapter VII which relates to acts of aggression. Obviously, it did so because it knew that the Kashmir was a disputed state. And, issue of its integration with India or Pakistan remained to be resolved.From the foregoing, it is evident that the Instrument of Accession does not exist. The `accession’ of the disputed state, through a resolution of the puppet assembly, is null and void. This `resolution’ violates the Security Council’s directive forbidding India to forge unilateral ‘accession’ of the state.

In global crisis, Islamic finance may be the answer
Imran Iqbal

WE are currently in the midst of an extraordinary crisis in the history of the world. All the attention has diverted from wars and terrorist activities to economics and finance. The newspapers are stirring emotions with headlines such as “meltdown”, “economic crisis”, “global recession” and “billions written-off”. Political parties and governments are putting aside their differences and working together to come up with a joint approach to the problems. Established institutions such as the Lehman Brothers and AIG are falling before our eyes. Trust is at an all-time low with no one willing to lend.
As billions of cash is injected back into the global economies, politicians and economists are wondering what went wrong, what lessons can be learnt and how to change things so that such problems don’t happen again. Gordon Brown, the British Prime Minister, suggested that he wanted world leaders to gather for a new Bretton Woods — the conference held to decide how the post-war financial system should be run. He said there had to be “a new financial architecture for the years ahead”. This is all well and good, but are these solutions going to be radically different from the current ones? Will this new proposal really help prevent the mini crises we have seen every decade or so? I think it is time that the world leaders and central bankers considered a fundamentally different system. One that is not based on debt or encourages people to live beyond their means. A system that pushes individuals to “save now, buy later” rather than “buy now, pay later”.
A system that moves away from wealth being concentrated amongst a select few whilst hundreds of millions go hungry. Now is the right time to look at an alternative solution. Something that ensures that money is invested with people that have good ideas and viable projects rather than being given to people who have the best credit which leads to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. But what is this alternative solution? Let us look at some of the causes of the current crisis and how this alternative solution would have dealt with it.
It is universally agreed that the economic crisis we are in now, started with the sub-prime mortgages. This is where banks and other financial institutions lent money to individuals in the United States, often at more than the value of the properties they intended to purchase. The loans were offered at attractive fixed rates that would revert to the market-floating rate after a couple of years. As rates rose and property prices fell, most of these individuals were not able to pay back their loans resulting in many defaults and re-possessions. The alternative solution I propose does not believe in lending to buy property but instead the financial institution will either buy the property by itself or in partnership with the individual and then allow them to pay rent for the part they don’t own. Since the financing is based on the value of the property it does not allow it to exceed the asset cost. Furthermore, when people are unable to pay, this system encourages the wealthy financial institutions to give them time to reorganise their finances rather than kicking them out onto the street.

—Khaleej Times