GlobalVillageSpace
Media Partner
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2017
- Messages
- 993
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
CPEC and Pakistan’s road to development: Can India sabotage the plan?
Global Village Space |
Saleem Akhtar Malik |
CPEC is presently the subject of intense debate within and outside Pakistan. India has openly declared its opposition to CPEC because of Gilgit-Baltistan, which, India claims, were part of the disputed princely state of Jammu & Kashmir. India lays claim to the whole of J&K and maintains that the projected corridor will violate its territorial sovereignty.
The plug
Pakistan’s response to the situation in Jammu & Kashmir, soon after independence, was determined by a civil government, which found itself incapable of launching an overt military operation to liberate J&K, and was thus constrained to seek help from the Kashmiri freedom fighters and tribesmen from the tribal belt that separates Pakistan from Afghanistan. Pakistan Army’s role in this conflict remained confined to seconding two of its officers to a ghost headquarters covertly set up with the blessings of Pakistan’s prime minister for planning, preparation, and execution of the war in J&K. It also sent some of its officers on leave to provide leadership to the tribesmen. Pakistan Army was fully involved in the conflict in the spring of 1948 when the Indian Army was threatening to advance beyond Line Uri-Poonch-Naushera.
The First Kashmir War left Pakistan holding not only the mountain barrier separating the Valley from the plains of West Punjab, but also in possession of Gilgit & Baltistan.
As a result of the First Kashmir War (1947-48), Pakistan had liberated one- third of the state of Jammu & Kashmir but failed to dislodge the Indians from the Valley. Moreover, India still controlled the sources of the Indus river system. Yet everything had not gone as planned by the Indian leadership. In the twilight years of the British Raj, there was a Congress- led government in the restive Muslim- majority North West Frontier Province (NWFP), contiguous to Jammu & Kashmir. And the Congress had laid claims to the province. It had planned to manipulate the accession of the NWFP with India through its ally Ghaffar Khan and hoped that with India in possession of Jammu & Kashmir through the Radcliffe Award, the road would be open for the Indian dominance of Afghanistan and ingress into Central Asia. That was not to be. Despite its machinations, Congress party failed to hack off NWFP from Pakistan.
Read more: Is Kashmir slipping away from India?
The princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, as it existed in October 1947, was a manufactured entity. With the assistance of mercenaries – foreign (French and American) as well as local, Ranjit Singh was able to invade and throw together a mixed bag of ethnically, culturally and geographically disparate regions of Kashmir Valley, Ladakh, and the Karakorams. Starting in July 1834, the Sikh general Zorawar’s army captured Baltistan, a Muslim principality in the Indus Valley to the north of Kargil, across the Kargil Heights.
In 1842 a local adventurer, Karim Khan, captured Gilgit with the support of a Sikh army from Kashmir. Thereafter, this region changed hands many times between the local rulers and the Sikhs. In 1877, the British established the Gilgit Agency in order to “guard India against the Russian advance”. In 1935, the British forced Maharaja Hari Singh to lease them Gilgit, Hunza, Nagar, Yasin, and Ashkomen for 60 years (The Sikh Encyclopedia).
The First Kashmir War left Pakistan holding not only the mountain barrier separating the Valley from the plains of West Punjab, but also in possession of Gilgit & Baltistan. Later, the Sino-Indian border war effectively quarantined Tibet from India. In the 21st Century, huge iron, copper, and natural gas deposits have been discovered in Afghanistan, not to mention the enormous gas reserves in Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan. India can have access to these natural deposits, but for this giant plug controlled by Pakistan.
The present lineup
The world is no longer divided into two camps based on opposing ideologies. Ideological states have been replaced by “identity states”.
We must reconcile with how the world has changed since the Cold War. Water flows in the direction where it finds the least resistance. The same is true about relationships- individual and collective, hence the new world alignments in which the United States, the European Union countries, Japan, and India are lined up against an assertive China. We should not, however, compare the post-Cold War alignments with the rivalry between the United States and the erstwhile Soviet Union. The world is no longer divided into two camps based on opposing ideologies. Ideological states have been replaced by “identity states”. It is not a matter of fight till death for either of the contestants.
Read more: Why China wants to ‘speed up’ CPEC’s construction?
In many areas, the United States and China complement each other. While China blows hot and cold in the Pacific, it is very careful about overplaying its hand. In this new post-Cold War alignment, the United States, and the informal coalition it is trying to forge view themselves as representatives of pluralistic and benign societies arrayed against an authoritarian and repressive China. For the last many decades, there are insurgencies and separatist movements going on in the Indian-held Kashmir and in its northeastern states. However, the western powers only focus on China’s restive provinces, especially Tibet.
Read full article:
CPEC and Pakistan’s road to development: Can India sabotage the plan?
Global Village Space |
Saleem Akhtar Malik |
CPEC is presently the subject of intense debate within and outside Pakistan. India has openly declared its opposition to CPEC because of Gilgit-Baltistan, which, India claims, were part of the disputed princely state of Jammu & Kashmir. India lays claim to the whole of J&K and maintains that the projected corridor will violate its territorial sovereignty.
The plug
Pakistan’s response to the situation in Jammu & Kashmir, soon after independence, was determined by a civil government, which found itself incapable of launching an overt military operation to liberate J&K, and was thus constrained to seek help from the Kashmiri freedom fighters and tribesmen from the tribal belt that separates Pakistan from Afghanistan. Pakistan Army’s role in this conflict remained confined to seconding two of its officers to a ghost headquarters covertly set up with the blessings of Pakistan’s prime minister for planning, preparation, and execution of the war in J&K. It also sent some of its officers on leave to provide leadership to the tribesmen. Pakistan Army was fully involved in the conflict in the spring of 1948 when the Indian Army was threatening to advance beyond Line Uri-Poonch-Naushera.
The First Kashmir War left Pakistan holding not only the mountain barrier separating the Valley from the plains of West Punjab, but also in possession of Gilgit & Baltistan.
As a result of the First Kashmir War (1947-48), Pakistan had liberated one- third of the state of Jammu & Kashmir but failed to dislodge the Indians from the Valley. Moreover, India still controlled the sources of the Indus river system. Yet everything had not gone as planned by the Indian leadership. In the twilight years of the British Raj, there was a Congress- led government in the restive Muslim- majority North West Frontier Province (NWFP), contiguous to Jammu & Kashmir. And the Congress had laid claims to the province. It had planned to manipulate the accession of the NWFP with India through its ally Ghaffar Khan and hoped that with India in possession of Jammu & Kashmir through the Radcliffe Award, the road would be open for the Indian dominance of Afghanistan and ingress into Central Asia. That was not to be. Despite its machinations, Congress party failed to hack off NWFP from Pakistan.
Read more: Is Kashmir slipping away from India?
The princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, as it existed in October 1947, was a manufactured entity. With the assistance of mercenaries – foreign (French and American) as well as local, Ranjit Singh was able to invade and throw together a mixed bag of ethnically, culturally and geographically disparate regions of Kashmir Valley, Ladakh, and the Karakorams. Starting in July 1834, the Sikh general Zorawar’s army captured Baltistan, a Muslim principality in the Indus Valley to the north of Kargil, across the Kargil Heights.
In 1842 a local adventurer, Karim Khan, captured Gilgit with the support of a Sikh army from Kashmir. Thereafter, this region changed hands many times between the local rulers and the Sikhs. In 1877, the British established the Gilgit Agency in order to “guard India against the Russian advance”. In 1935, the British forced Maharaja Hari Singh to lease them Gilgit, Hunza, Nagar, Yasin, and Ashkomen for 60 years (The Sikh Encyclopedia).
The First Kashmir War left Pakistan holding not only the mountain barrier separating the Valley from the plains of West Punjab, but also in possession of Gilgit & Baltistan. Later, the Sino-Indian border war effectively quarantined Tibet from India. In the 21st Century, huge iron, copper, and natural gas deposits have been discovered in Afghanistan, not to mention the enormous gas reserves in Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan. India can have access to these natural deposits, but for this giant plug controlled by Pakistan.
The present lineup
The world is no longer divided into two camps based on opposing ideologies. Ideological states have been replaced by “identity states”.
We must reconcile with how the world has changed since the Cold War. Water flows in the direction where it finds the least resistance. The same is true about relationships- individual and collective, hence the new world alignments in which the United States, the European Union countries, Japan, and India are lined up against an assertive China. We should not, however, compare the post-Cold War alignments with the rivalry between the United States and the erstwhile Soviet Union. The world is no longer divided into two camps based on opposing ideologies. Ideological states have been replaced by “identity states”. It is not a matter of fight till death for either of the contestants.
Read more: Why China wants to ‘speed up’ CPEC’s construction?
In many areas, the United States and China complement each other. While China blows hot and cold in the Pacific, it is very careful about overplaying its hand. In this new post-Cold War alignment, the United States, and the informal coalition it is trying to forge view themselves as representatives of pluralistic and benign societies arrayed against an authoritarian and repressive China. For the last many decades, there are insurgencies and separatist movements going on in the Indian-held Kashmir and in its northeastern states. However, the western powers only focus on China’s restive provinces, especially Tibet.
Read full article:
CPEC and Pakistan’s road to development: Can India sabotage the plan?
