China emerging as global leaderEr. Hilal Ahmad War
Srinagar: Before the partition there were about a dozen provinces in British India, each locally ruled by a governor under the overall control of the British Viceroy. There were also some centrally administered territories. The British Crown also enjoyed a Paramountcy over six hundred odd princely states under a treaty between them and the government of British-India. Each princely state was in essence a sovereign state in which the British-India government had posted its official ambassadors designated as British President. All these states had given the arrangement of communication and foreign affairs to the British-Indian Government. The Indian Independence Act was passed on 15th July1947 which got royal assent on 18th of July 1947, by virtue of which British-India was partitioned into two dominions i.e. India and Pakistan. The Section 7 (b) part I of Indian Independence Act, 1947 ceases the authority of Maharaja of Kashmir as a ruler. By virtue of the same Section 7 (b) of IIA-1947 all the treaties between the British-Indian Government and the rulers of the princely states got cancelled. Therefore all the princely states of the Indian sub-continent had automatically regained their full-fledged and independent sovereign status. By virtue of Section 7(b) of Indian Independence Act, the accession is illegal, illegitimate and unconstitutional and in violation of the International Law. The document of accession was signed by a state subject of Jammu and Kashmir (Nation), namely Hari Singh in his personal capacity and not as a ruler de-jure.That is why the then Governor General wrote back to Dogra's that the accession has to be put to the ratification. The constitution of Jammu and Kashmir reserves 24 seats of the legislative assembly for Azad Jammu and Kashmir. There cannot be any constitutional amendment unless those are fulfilled. Even the so-called accession of the state with India cannot be justified on the same analogy. Ratification of accession is necessary for the simple reason that Dogra rule seized on 15 the august 1947.
China respects the aspirations of the people of Kashmir. China has demonstrated its conscience by recognizing Kashmir as a disputed territory which is highly appreciable. The role of China is laudable and an initiation of a new world order. The Chinese stance over Kashmir has laid the foundation of a peaceful world and mutual co-existence. China has opened a new chapter not only in the subcontinent but in world history by recognising the fundamental right of the oppressed. The dynamics of this great and historical decision has opened the Pandora’s Box for warmongers and it has opened a debate at world level among the peace-lovers and thinkers. If Barack Obama wants a change, he must change his foreign policy towards the world in general and China in particular and understand the good intentions of China. This historical and bold decision should be debated at the UNO. This debate will open a tunnel for world peace for which the key lies in the resolution of Kashmir problem. If Barack Obama’s recent statements are to be believed, then America must recognize China as a good friend without fearing that the China is a threat to the American supremacy. Debating the decision of China in the UNO will befriend china and America and America will emerge as a global leader De-Jure. The way China is upholding the golden principles of the United Nations Charter and swallows the bitter pills which originate from United Nations Charter in the interest of international security, peace and justice. The present global scenario leads the China towards a leadership role in the globe. The global developments are taking place so fast that the world is once again marching towards becoming bipolar after the fall of Soviet Russia. Since China is not ambitious to become a superpower but circumstances will ultimately lead China towards world leadership which will balance the power on the globe.
Immediately after Chinese troops had made incursions into Ladakh, the land bounded by two of the world’s mightiest mountain ranges – the Great Himalaya and the Karakoram – the two sides are again involved in a diplomatic spat, this time over China’s issuing of different visas to residents of Kashmir. They have given stapled visas earlier to residents of Arunachal Pradesh, over which China claims its sovereignty .The action is seen by the authorities in New Delhi as an attempt by China to question status of Jammu and Kashmir as part of India. Several people from Kashmir have been left stranded as India and China fight over the nature of visas Indian authorities have lodged official protests with Beijing over a new practice of issuing special Chinese visas for residents of Kashmir. Strategic affairs analysts, Brahma Chellany and Acharya agreed that the visa issue was yet another attempt by China to keep India under pressure for a variety of strategic reasons. "China is opening up pressure points on various fronts to put India on the defensive”, said Chellany.
Acharya felt the Chinese strategy was aimed at pushing India into a corner so that it doesn't ratchet up other issues, like the long-standing border dispute or Tibet. The forthcoming visit of the Dalai Lama to Tawang in Arunachal Pradesh, to which China has staked claim, is a bone of contention and Beijing has asked New Delhi to have it called off.
China has also been issuing stapled visas to residents of Arunachal Pradesh, saying that the north-eastern Indian state, of which China claims a portion is a disputed territory and that its natives are “Chinese”. External Affairs Minister S M Krishna is likely to raise the issue with his Chinese counterpart Yang Jiechi's visit to India October 26-27, top sources told IANS. Yang will be here to participate in the trilateral meeting of the foreign ministers of India, China and Russia which will be held in Bangalore.
China’s visa policy has not only triggered diplomatic row but gives a clear signal that Beijing has reservation on the status of Jammu and Kashmir as an integral part of India as claimed by successive Governments of India.
“It is a moral victory for the people of Kashmir that China, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, has been accepting Jammu and Kashmir as a disputed territory,” The Chinese visa issue is not the only recent development to draw international attention to the Kashmir issue. Peoples Political Party (PPP) recognizes China as an ally and a strategic partner of Kashmir. China is the only country which follows the golden principles of United Nations Charter and recognized the plebiscite resolutions passed by United Nation. China has taken a very legal position by recognizing Kashmir’s disputed states and has mustered courage to take practical steps in this direction by issuing special visas to Kashmiris. Muammer Qadafi, the Libyan leader, had, in the course of his speech to the UN General Assembly on September 23, said that Kashmir should be an independent state. “We should end this conflict. It should be a Baathist state between India and Pakistan,” said a statement from the Libyan leader that not only encouraged Kashmiri leaders and parties but also won him local fans. The Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) in a meeting, held in New York on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session, said that it supported the people of Jammu and Kashmir in “realisation of their legitimate right of self-determination in accordance with relevant UN resolutions and the aspirations of Kashmiri people”. The 56-member grouping also appointed its assistant secretary general, Abdullah bin Abdul Rahman al Bakr, a Saudi national, a special envoy on Kashmir after the meeting of its Contact Group on Kashmir at the UN headquarters. The United Jihad Council, an alliance of Kashmiri freedom groups, welcomes the new visa policy of China, for Kashmiri nationals and said China, being a giant regional power, has a “pivotal role” to play in resolving the Kashmir issue.
M J Akbar, a veteran Indian journalist and author, however, said China did not want war with India, but trade, which is now close to US$60 billion. “There is a rational reason why China has decided to exploit Indian weaknesses and contradictions through rhetoric and provocative gestures on the border and in its Delhi embassy. It seeks to keep India off balance, to the extent it can, at a time of great existential discomfort for its ally Pakistan,” he said. This time there appears to be a coordinated attempt by Beijing and Islamabad to intimidate India, If the turn of events leads to open hostilities India must chose the time and place most advantageous to its own troops rather than be rushed into an unequal contest”.
Indian Defence Analysts says, “Nonetheless, given the heady nature of the season at this time of the year, India should be prepared for aggressive action by its neighbours. This time it is happening in unison with malice aforethought. The signal for it was given when Pakistan Army chief General Ashfaq Kiyani visited Beijing and since then there has been a slow but steady escalation of tension India and her two neighbours. Calls for talks by Pakistan and China are subterfuges and camouflage for their joint intention of destabilizing India using a combination of terrorist and conventional military tactics. For both of them the jehadi organizations that constitute the United Jihad Council are the bedrock of their geopolitics in which Pakistan is the vanguard and the terrorists are their proxies. It is not for nothing that Beijing has invested so much in terms of nuclear weapons and the missiles for delivering them. Pakistan’s nuclear weapons capability is the shield from behind which the terrorist spear is hurled. It is not for nothing that at every occasion Pakistan should harp on its being a nuclear weapons power and that military confrontation could, very quickly, erupt into a nuclear exchange. It is bald-faced nuclear coercion particularly since it is the overtly stated policy of Pakistan to use nuclear weapons at short notice”.
There is a contested border with India, and India has not forgotten its defeat by China in a border row in 1962. China also borders Kashmir and the Indians do not recognise the border agreement the Chinese reached with Pakistan over the section of Azad Kashmir. Although the Chinese and Indian sides have been unable to resolve their border dispute, they have nevertheless agreed in recent years to take various measures to reduce tension and the possibility for conflict along the lines of control that separate their two forces .From a geopolitical point of view, China has consistently sought to constrain Indian power and confine it essentially to the region of South Asia. In addition to the strategic interest in not having to confront a single powerful neighbour to the south of the Himalayas, China is also concerned by the residual Indian interest in Tibet. After all India still harbours the Dalai Lama and his unofficial government in exile. Thus China continues to refuse to recognise India's claims to Sikkim, it encourages Bangladesh to stand up to India and above all China has supported India's arch-rival Pakistan. In the 1965 Indo-Pak war China went so far as to threaten to open a second front against India. But its main support has been expressed through the supply of arms. The Chinese have sought to redress the balance by helping Pakistan to acquire nuclear weapons and missile technology. From a international perspective, India and China were rivals in the Cold War era. Indeed India and the US held joint military exercises for the first time in May 2008. But China is anxious to avoid trouble with the US at a time of leadership succession, and at a time when it has to adjust to the terms of entry to the World Trade Organisation. Moreover, China has benefited to an extent from the "war on terror", which has enabled it to suppress resistance to its rule in its Central Asian province of Xinjiang. Nevertheless the Chinese eye warily the American military presence in Central Asia. Although they have not said so publicly, the Chinese are very much opposed to the possible use of nuclear weapons.
On September 28, 2009, China asked India and Pakistan to seek a solution to the Kashmir issue through peaceful and friendly consultations and offered to play a "constructive role" in resolving the "bilateral to issue". As a friendly country, China would also be happy to see progress in the peace process between India and Pakistan, said Hu Zhengyue, Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs, in charge of the Asian region. Kashmir is an issue that has been longstanding left from history. This issue touches the bilateral relations between the relevant countries," he told a group of visiting foreign journalists here.
China’s declared positions on the Kashmir issue have evolved through four distinct phases. In the 1950s, Beijing upheld a more or less neutral position on the Kashmir issue. The 1960s and 1970s saw China shift its position toward public support of Pakistan’s views on the issue as Sino-Indian relations deteriorated. Since the early 1980s, however, with China and India moving toward normalization of bilateral relations, Beijing returned to a position of neutrality even as it sought to balance between the need to satisfy Pakistan’s demands for support and the growing interest in developing a better relationship with India. By the early 1990s, China’s position became unequivocal that the Kashmir issue is a bilateral matter to be solved by India and Pakistan through peaceful means.
China’s Kashmir policy must be understood within the broader contexts of its South Asia policy in general and where this policy fits in Beijing’s global strategies and its bilateral relationships with India and Pakistan in particular. While in the past, Beijing supported Islamabad’s positions on the Kashmir issue to demonstrate solidarity with an “all weather” ally during periods of Sino-Indian estrangement and hostility, normalization with New Delhi has necessitated the adoption of a policy of neutrality to avoid unnecessarily alienating India and running the risk of entrapment. Indeed, as both India and Pakistan have acquired nuclear weapons capabilities, China has become extremely worried that any escalation of conflicts over Kashmir could precipitate a nuclear exchange, with horrifying consequences. Beijing is quite interested in the reduction of tension over Kashmir and therefore is particularly encouraged by recent developments, such as the ceasefire along the line of control, the defense secretary meeting on the Siachen Glacier demilitarization, the resumption of civilian flight and the opening of the bus service through Kashmir, discussion on reducing military presence along the line of control, and military confidence building measures including the agreement on missile launch notification..
Chinese analysts suggest that both India and Pakistan have a lot to gain from the current rapprochement. Prolonged tension and fighting over Kashmir has exacted severe tolls in human and material terms for both countries. For instance, maintaining supplies to the Indian troops stationed on the Siachen Glacier costs New Delhi $1 million a day. Since fighting began in 1984, some 2,500 Indian and 1,300 Pakistani troops have died over the years, not so much in direct combat but as a result of the treacherous weather and terrain conditions. Managing the Kashmir issue has become a critical consideration in New Delhi’s efforts to realize its great power potentials by channelling more resources to economic development. For Pakistan, the conflict consumes even more resources. The post-September 11 regional security environment and the U.S.-led global war on terrorism also exert external pressure for Pakistan to deal with cross-border terrorist activities. Beijing is also interested in the evolving negotiations over Kashmir due to its own entanglement, which is largely a result of the October 1963 Sino-Pakistani Border Agreement. India claims the Chinese-controlled Aksai Chin of approximately 35,000 square kilometres as part of the territory in Ladaakh, Kashmir. While a remote possibility, a resolution of the Kashmir dispute between New Delhi and Islamabad could re-open the sovereignty issue left over in the 1963 Sino-Pakistani border agreement. Beijing has growing interests in seeing a stable South Asia and is seeking a better relationship with India. That explains Beijing’s more unequivocal position on the Kashmir issue, which in turn is firmly grounded in the belief that the only realistic way to resolve the Kashmir conflict is through peaceful negotiation between India and Pakistan. As Islamabad’s trusted friend, Beijing could and should use its influence to convince Pakistan that it is also in their own interest to resolve the issue peacefully. China is also lays claim on a piece of land of Kashmir from Ladakh side.Over much of the last 40 years, China has been claiming Arunachal Pradesh as its own territory. They have given stapled visas earlier to residents of Arunachal Pradesh, over which China has a genuine claim of its sovereignty.
The China is also facing problems with Islamic Separatists in s ‘Xinjiang’ .Xinjiang actually shares borders with Ladakh in Indian Occupied Kashmir. Its size is 1.8 million sq km; almost one-sixth of China; half as much as India. The pre-August 1947 Jammu and Kashmir measures some 2, 65,000 sq km. of which some 86,000 sq km is under Pakistani control; some 37,500 sq km under China; the balance, 1, 41,000 sq km, is occupied by India. Some sources believe that turmoil in Xinjiang is fanned and funded by Indo-American secret intelligence Agencies. This secret Agency is bent upon to make ‘Xinjiang’ China’s East-Pakistan. They want to disintegrate China in the same way as they did in 1971 under Agartalla Conspiracy. Uprising in Tibet is openly backed by Indian Intelligence Agencies. The American hue and cry against Islamic terrorism in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Chechinya and in some parts of China, Philippine etc. is a camouflage to keep china and Russia in dark so that fatal network could easily be established for eliminating them from the map of Great Powers.
About AuthorEr. Hilal Ahmad War is the victim of history. Logic and reasoning is his forte. He is forthright, unsparing and vociferous that makes him controversial. He is energetic, enthusiastic and does not approve of narrow mindedness and believe that in an era of electronic revolution, one has view issues in a holistic manner. He is the Chairman of a political party namely “People’s Political (PPP)” which is striving for peaceful resolution of Kashmir Dispute within the four corners International Law as enshrined in United Nations Charter. He also heads the “Bhutto Memorial Trust”. He has knowledge of Foreign Affairs and International Diplomacy. He always plead that International Peace, Human Rights and self-determination right are the foundation of United Nations Charter. To him the credit goes, of presenting first ever ‘ Road Map’ on August10, 1996, for resolution of Kashmir conflict, which is slowly and steadily being adopted by India and Pakistan these days. He is the architect and author of the concept of ‘Srinagar-Muzaffarabad -Bus Service’. The first two points of aforesaid Road Map have been recognized and acted upon, by India and Pakistan, pertaining to the Human and Economic aspect of Kashmir problem. He has authored a booklet entitled “Realities behind Kashmir Problem” .He has authored another best seller book entitled “The Great Disclosures (Secrets Unmasked)”. He plans to write another book entitled, “Global ambitions of America”.
The author can be reached at: ppp.kashmir@gmail.com,warhilal@hotmail.com
New Delhi: Delhi Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit on Friday said the final decision on parliament attack convict Afzal Guru's mercy petition rests with the central home ministry.
She said the Delhi government has made its position clear on the matter in the file, which was sent back to Lieutenant Governor Tejendra Khanna Wednesday. In its reply, the Delhi government has not opposed Guru's death sentence but expressed concerns of law and order if he is executed.
BJP puts up hoardings in Delhi on Afzal Guru case
"We have sent the file on mercy petition of Afzal Guru to the lieutenant governor. The final decision rests with the home ministry," Dikshit told reporters on the sidelines of a function here.
