09
January

Reigniting the Water Wars

Published in Hilal English

Written By: Dr. Huma Baqai

In the event of a war, states are entitled to suspend treaties, including diplomatic relations by invoking Article 62 of the Vienna Convention. If India or Pakistan consider revoking the treaty, it is itself signaling an act of war. This will equip both the countries with the right under international law to take up any other coercive or non-coercive measure as an act of reprisal. This is not a pretty picture. Perhaps India should also be mindful of the fact that China is an upper-riparian country in Indus and Brahmaputra basins.

What’s ticking between Pakistan and India is not the nuclear bomb, but the water bomb. For years international relations strategists have warned that wars in the future would be over resources. Post-recent tensions in South Asia, Prime Minister Narendera Modi suspended meetings of the committee that oversees water sharing between India and Pakistan, using water as a diplomatic weapon. International experts are of the view that Delhi is using the water issue to put pressure on Pakistan in the dispute over Kashmir. The Indian strategy is to build huge storage facilities and canals over and around the rivers that flow through Indian administered Kashmir but most of the water is allotted to Pakistan under the Indus Water Treaty. The 56 year old treaty is under strain, and Modi’s stance and strategy is not conducive to its continuity. Like it is said, sharing the waters of the Cauvery has been an issue for decades but it is particularly contentious now. The latest development is that Pakistan has yet again approached the World Bank to address the violation of the Treaty by India. India has successfully stalled the appointment of the chairman of the Arbitration Court of Justice, which Pakistan had requested, by immediately moving in with a request for a neutral expert.


This new twist to the treaty has come at a time when Modi government has chosen to publicly threaten Pakistan with the abrogation of the treaty. India is threatening to cut Pakistan’s water access. The 56 year-old water sharing agreement has run into trouble as tensions have escalated between the rivals, post-Uri attack. Statements by Prime Minister Modi calling for a review of the Treaty where he said that blood and water cannot flow together, and then hinting at revoking the treaty were seen as confirmation of these apprehension.


However, this is not new. India has been following a policy of ‘dewatering Pakistan’ since long. India already has 20 hydro projects on the three western rivers allocated to Pakistan. It is now building another 10 and more are being planned.


In the past also, Islamabad has complained to the international court that the dam in the Gurez Valley, one of dozens planned by India, will affect Pakistan’s river flow and is illegal. The court had halted any permanent work on the river for the moment but India got the permission to continue tunneling and building other associated projects. In 1987, upon Pakistan’s objection, Delhi had to suspend the Tulbul Navigation Project on the Jhelum River. As per a BBC report, sources within Indian Water Resources Ministry have hinted that the project could now be revived. As part of Modi’s aggressive water policy, this will directly have an impact on Pakistan’s agriculture.


The former chairman of Indus River System Authority, Engineer Fateh Ullah Khan Gandapur said on record that India is using water as a ‘weapon of mass destruction’ to convert Pakistan into a desert and is diverting the entire flow into the Indian territory of Rajasthan. Salman Bashir, former foreign secretary of Pakistan, categorically said that diversion of Indus water by India will lead to war. Prime Minister Modi in one of his pre-election speeches in Batinda said that water that belongs to India should remain in India. Diverting the waters of Indus is not realistically possible, and cannot be done without triggering a war between the two countries.


Pakistan, India and Afghanistan Water Triangle
India has also tried to use its influence to start interfering with the flow of water from Afghanistan to Pakistan. Islamabad has shown its concern over New Delhi’s increased help to Kabul for development of a number of storages on the Kabul River without addressing Pakistan’s concerns. The Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in his visit to Afghanistan back in 2011 had pledged $1.5bn in development assistance, with special interest in dam-building on the Kabul River. This commitment, apart from other heads, is meant for building 14 small and medium dams with total water storage capacity of 7.4MAF. International financial institutions including the World Bank have agreed to provide $7.079bn for these projects. In 2016, Indian experts completed the feasibility and detailed engineering of 12 projects to be built on River Kabul. If these 12 projects are completed, they will store 4.7 million acre feet of water, squeezing river flows to Pakistan. Moreover, in the absence of major dams in Pakistan, Pakistan will eventually end up buying electricity from Afghanistan, which may be the underlying purpose of this extensive 12 dam plan of the Afghan government with Indian collaboration. India and Afghanistan are actively exploring Chenab like run of the river projects on Afghanistan eastern rivers as a strategic offensive against Pakistan. Pakistan does not have any water treaty with Afghanistan. The rules governing flow of Afghanistan’s eastern rivers, mainly Kabul, Kunar and Chitral into Pakistan are just some internationally accepted principles. Pakistan in retaliation had hinted at diverting Chitral River before its entry into Afghanistan in the event of attempts made to deprive it of its due share. The strained relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan and the constant Indian manipulation of the conflict also has Pakistan’s water security at stake. A latest policy brief by Leadership for Environment and Development (LEAD) Pakistan titled “Hydro-diplomacy between Pakistan and Afghanistan” says “planned water projects on Kabul River by upper-riparian Afghanistan will adversely affect lower-riparian Pakistan. It is critically important to arrive at a consensus by understanding issues, maintaining historical rights and arriving at benefit sharing options for both countries through the use of Kabul River waters.”

 

We need to showcase our water vision for the future which includes not only raising objections to what India is doing but having a water conservation plan and a strategy to respond to climate change. Pakistan’s water security is intrinsically linked to its food security. In Pakistan little or no dams are being constructed and to add insult to injury the two largest dams are silting.

India has never underestimated the significance of river waters to strengthen its geostrategic interests in the region. It is now working on a double-squeeze water policy against Pakistan by constantly building on the western rivers in occupied Kashmir and facilitating projects on the Kabul River. The establishment in Delhi has a very aggressive water mindset towards Pakistan. It has under successive governments, talked about reviewing the Treaty “to teach Pakistan a lesson”. Modi is just more vocal about it.


The statement by P.M. Modi was not taken lightly by Pakistan, and it immediately approached the World Bank to appoint a chairman for the Court of Arbitration because Pakistan claims that the design of the 330 MW Kishanganga Project violated the treaty. India followed with the demand for the appointment of a neutral expert. The World Bank’s take on the situation is that both processes initiated by the respective countries were advancing at the same time, creating a risk of contradictory outcomes that potentially endanger the Treaty. Thus, the pause is to address this impasse. Arbitration has been halted over two Indian hydro-electric projects on the Chenab River; 850 MW Ratle and 330 MW Kishanganga. The World Bank has counseled bilateral negotiations between India and Pakistan. It has urged both the countries to sort out differences and problems by January 2017. The bank had initially agreed to initiate both the processes simultaneously, but decided to pause them post Indian objection.


India has welcomed the decision and is ready to talk to Pakistan bilaterally to resolve the issue. This sudden desire to talk to Pakistan over water has arised because it suits India for several reasons to achieve its end objectives. One; India has initiated this new twist in the Treaty by continuous violation and hurling threats at Pakistan. Two; India has been stonewalling all initiative for dialogue except on the Treaty, this happened only after the issue was taken to the World Bank. More interestingly, India has habitually sidelined the permanent Indus Commission, established under Article VIII of the Indus Water Treaty (IWT), the primary channel of communication between the two countries. Now the question arises why this sudden desire to resolve the water issue through dialogue? It is also important to note here that India, which is ready for bilateral negotiation with Pakistan after Pakistan approached the World Bank, had even suspended routine bi-annual talks between the Indus Commissions of the two countries, and had taken a principle decision to restart work on the Tulbul Navigation Project on the Jhelum.


The last time bilateral dialogue on the Treaty brought some success was in 1978. The situation between India and Pakistan is different today and we are in state of dispute paralysis. The trust deficit between the two countries is at its highest level. The LoC keeps blowing hot and cold. The theatre of conflict now also includes Afghanistan. Indian opposition to CPEC is an open secret. The atmospherics for dialogue to resolve a contentious issue, like water seem unlikely.


The Indian strategy of continuous building of projects and at the same time, threatening Pakistan with revoking of the Treaty and resorting to dialogue only are a time-gaining strategy because of international pressure to achieve its nefarious designs, does not induce any confidence. Pakistan has made it clear that it will not accept any modification or changes in the IWT. Pakistan’s reaction to the World Bank brokered pause is not positive. Since it is seen as an Indian strategy of gaining time to continue building, till it becomes fate accomplished. A review of the Treaty is also not acceptable to Pakistan. The review, as already stated by Indian experts, is aimed at more rights over the western rivers, which is Pakistan’s agriculture’s lifeline.


Legal status of the Treaty
Ahmer Bilal Soofi, an eminent Pakistani lawyer’s take on the Treaty is that “The Treaty has no provision for unilateral “suspension”. It is of an indefinite duration and was never intended to be time-specific, event-specific or regime-specific — but rather state-specific. It will not expire with regime change. It is binding on both the states equally and offers no exit provision. The Treaty survived the two wars as well as other Pakistan-India conflicts because none of them was termed a war under international law.


In the event of a war, states are entitled to suspend treaties, including diplomatic relations by invoking Article 62 of the Vienna Convention. If India or Pakistan consider revoking the Treaty, it is itself signaling an act of war. This will equip both the countries with the right under international law to take up any other coercive or non-coercive measure as an act of reprisal”. This is not a pretty picture. Perhaps India should also be mindful of the fact that China is an upper-riparian country in Indus and Brahmaputra basins.


India is playing with fire using water as a tool of aggressive diplomacy to mount pressure on Pakistan. Using a mutually used resource to gain geo-strategic advantage is a recipe for trouble. On the other hand Pakistan should not take this lightly. India has time and again successfully manipulated the World Bank brokerage to its advantage because of Pakistan’s delayed response and weak water diplomacy. Pakistan needs to put its act together now, both internally and externally. Giving foreign policy statements, largely just for the consumption of the internal audience without any real plan on the ground, will not work. We need to showcase our water vision for the future which includes not only raising objections to what India is doing but having a water conservation plan and a strategy to respond to climate change. Pakistan’s water security is intrinsically linked to its food security. In Pakistan little or no dams are being constructed and to add insult to injury the two largest dams are silting. Pakistani authorities have so far done nothing to develop water uses on River Kabul. There is also no progress on the Munda dam. It paints a very grim picture of our water resources, like it is said, wars in today’s world are not fought on the conventional front but on the diplomatic, intellectual and economic front.

 

The writer is an eminent analyst and anchor person. She is currently an Associate Professor at Department of Social Sciences and Liberal Arts at IBA, Karachi.

E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

 
09
January

A New Fairness Needed !

Published in Hilal English

Written By: Syed Muhammad Ali

Obama administration wanted the world to pursue Nuclear Zero while it exceptionally built up India militarily. Similarly, how Donald Trump looks at Obama’s “Pivot to Asia” strategy will not only determine the peace, security and stability of Asia in general and South Asia in particular but also the long-term U.S. economic interests associated with Asia-Pacific.

The tumultuous month of November 2016 will long be remembered in world history. The election victory of Donald Trump in the U.S. Presidential elections led to nationwide protests and stunned Washington’s key allies including the UK, Germany, France and Japan. If Donald Trump manages to keep his promise and actually demands from NATO and other key allies to dig deeper into their own pockets, to ‘do more’ themselves for their individual security needs and depend less on Washington, it would reflect an unprecedented ‘U.S. security commitment fatigue’ and growing significance of domestic economic concerns for the new Republican administration. A declining U.S. security commitment towards both its traditional Western European and East Asian allies by the new Republican administration could encourage them to shed their own nuclear restraint and accelerate their individual efforts towards their heightened national security needs.


Another major event within four days of the U.S. election, somewhat eclipsed by Trump’s historic victory over Mrs. Clinton, is the signing of an extraordinary nuclear deal between Japan and India. The Japanese nuclear deal is unique and extraordinary for five reasons. First, Japan is the only country in the world which has actually suffered two nuclear attacks during war and its sterling commitment towards non-proliferation and principled stance on arms control has traditionally been exemplary. However, the signing of this new deal, despite India possessing the developing world’s largest and oldest unsafeguarded nuclear program, now raises new questions regarding the future of these Japanese commitments. Second, this latest deal would help expedite various additional nuclear deals that the other States have earlier signed with India. Both French company Areva and U.S. nuclear giant Westinghouse use key Japanese components such as reactor vessels for their reactors. Third, this deal has been put together even more hurriedly than the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal by compressing the 123 Agreement, reprocessing, administrative arrangements and NSG into one. This is perhaps to ensure its swift implementation before the Obama administration leaves office. Four, this deal has a cursory mention of principled Indian Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) adherence and hardly expects a significant non-proliferation commitment, sans non-testing of nuclear weapons by New Delhi, in return for exceptional Japanese technological access and support. Five, this deal symbolizes the growing strategic Indo-Japanese partnership and reflects their mutual desire to counter-balance China in East Asia and Asia-Pacific.


Another significant and related event was the NSG’s meeting held in Vienna on November 11 to discuss the “technical, legal and political aspects of Non-NPT States’ Participation in the NSG”. According to informed sources, although the U.S. tried its best to gain maximum support for Indian’s NSG membership, a large number of member States including Russia, said that further discussions were still needed before individual membership cases could be evaluated. This indicates that the support for a criteria-based approach for considering additional members is growing and gaining momentum within the 48-nation group managing the international nuclear trade and cooperation.

 

A declining U.S. security commitment towards both its traditional Western European and East Asian allies by the new Republican administration could encourage them to shed their own nuclear restraint and accelerate their individual efforts towards their heightened national security needs.

The impression some observers have attempted to internationally present is that basically the tussle between the U.S. and China will eventually determine the outcome of the new NSG membership cases. However, the outcome of this latest meeting indicates that the reality is far more complex than popularly presented. The divisions between the three camps supporting exceptional membership, criteria-based membership and swing states are starker and deeper than initially anticipated, and achieving consensus by either group is not likely in the foreseeable future. Therefore, Obama administration’s agenda of hurriedly making India an NSG member before the Democrats’ term runs out has essentially failed.


This provides the incoming Republican administration with an opportunity to look at all Democrat-led initiatives and agendas afresh and with skepticism. Obama administration wanted the world to pursue Nuclear Zero while it exceptionally built up India militarily. Similarly, how Donald Trump looks at Obama’s “Pivot to Asia” strategy will not only determine the peace, security and stability of Asia in general and South Asia in particular but also the long-term economic interests associated with Asia-Pacific. Amidst serious domestic economic challenges, militarizing Asia-Pacific excessively and further escalating tensions with China could increase, not reduce threats to the long-term U.S. vital economic interests associated with Asia-Pacific.


Throughout history the Republicans have traditionally maintained a more careful balance in the delicate and complex U.S. relationship with both Pakistan and India than the Democrats. The presidencies of President Nixon, Reagan, Bush Senior and Bush Junior have demonstrated a better U.S. understanding of Pakistan’s regional security concerns towards India, leading to a relatively more stable regional order, reduced tensions, better crisis management and lower nuclear escalation risks.


One hopes that the new Republican administration will seek and shape a fresh and more prudent security agenda towards both Asia-Pacific and South Asia, which can make the nuclear-armed region more stable and less conflict-prone. It should include a comprehensive review of the U.S. policy towards South Asia and a fresh approach based on supporting a robust composite dialogue between New Delhi and Islamabad, sustainable cooperation with Pakistan in its efforts to defeat terrorism and stabilize Afghanistan, and supporting simultaneous NSG membership for both Pakistan and India. This new security agenda will enable the Republican administration to devote its attention, energies, resources and capabilities towards more urgent and graver challenges to the U.S. national security such as terrorism, ISIS, managing relations with China and Russia and putting its own house in order. Like always, ignoring Pakistan instead of working with it, will harm and not improve U.S. long-term national security interests both regionally and globally.

 

The writer is a Senior Research Fellow at the Center for International Strategic Studies, Islamabad.

E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

 
09
January

The Rise of Nationalism in Europe

Published in Hilal English

Written By: Saad Qamar Iqbal

Are EU’s Days Numbered?

Dramatic changes in the social and political landscape of EU pose serious doubts!

Brexit, and a gradual rise of nationalism in Europe is actively challenging the very idea of a merged European Union. The threat always existed in subtle forms of migration, financial and identity crisis. It has taken a more direct form as far-right, eurosceptic parties are gaining dramatic momentum. Far-right nationalists in Austria and Denmark have won their respective elections. Political entities openly denouncing the idea of European Union are gaining crucial support in Germany, Netherlands and elsewhere. Their progress varies across Europe; but France's Marine Le Pen, presently Europe’s most feared far-right politician is taking a good shot at the presidency, summing up the overall grim situation. With nationalism rearing its “ugly head”, is European Union past its partially-achieved prime?

 

theriseinnat1.jpgFrance and Frexit
France is of particular importance to EU’s integrity. Its historical role in the formation of EU in contrast to Britain’s which always appeared rather disgruntled and the current political might it possesses reinstates how Frexit could put EU in all sorts of jeopardy. What makes this even a possibility? Marine Le Pen, the nationalist leader contesting for presidency has openly attacked the idea of Euro and open borders. In 2015, her party, National Front bagged 6.8 million votes – their highest ever. The presidential elections are to be held in April 2017, and Le Pen is not facing a very convincing opposition. Most polls have rated her chances of success high: IPsos giving her a 14 points lead compared to Nicolas Sarkozy. She is known for anti-immigration policies and has often made headlines with her anti-Muslim remarks. The 48-years old re-established her strength as a politician in 2015 when she expelled the founder of the party, Jean-Marie Le Pen for his controversial statements.


Migration Crisis Forging Strong
Refugee influx is arguably the deepest-seated reason behind the consistent surge of nationalism in Europe. It is linked with other economic and social concerns like unemployment, weak law and order, and identity crisis in Europe. “Open borders” form an active part of rhetoric by the far-right politicians. Germany has been the refugee paradise for long, receiving more than a million refugees in 2015 – courtesy Angela Markel, the German Chancellor and apparently the last flag-bearer of Liberal Europe. The public perception is not equally welcoming. Markel will be seeking 4th term as the Chancellor but her party is losing ground to the opponents promising anti-migration policies.

 

theriseinnat.jpgThe refugee crisis is only getting worse with over 60 million people displaced worldwide. Europe is a relatively easy access for Syrians, with Germany being the favourite country. As Syrian crisis has no end in sight, Europe feels pressed to close the borders.


Anti-Establishment Sentiments
A strong public perception can make or break the government. The rising popularity of nationalistic views among people comes as the most discernible symptom of mounting nationalism in Europe. Interestingly, public sentiments do not always portray the situation on ground. They are often triggered taking little reality in account. Consider France as an example: the common belief is that Frenchmen are worse-off today. An overview of France’s performance suggests otherwise with a stable unemployment rate of 10%, lower than many other European nations. The other economic indicators are not bleak as suggested by the prevailing perception.


Mega Terrorist Attacks
The overall negativity in Europe fueling nationalism is largely augmented by major terrorist attacks since 2014. Charlie Hebdo, Paris; Nice and Brussels attacks reinforced the idea that Europe is gravely vulnerable. It fortifies a thorny opinion that this danger comes from the outsiders and has now seeped deep into the society. Revelations such as the Paris attack terrorists hailed from Brussels, reminded people how open borders are doing more harm than good. Nice attacker was a Tunisian-French, weakening the “multicultural Europe” stance and strengthening the anti-immigration belief now widely-held. Hate-incidents and Burkini bans are contributing to an exceedingly hostile atmosphere. The rising sense of insecurity is cashed-in by the far right political players. Terrorism, however, is not a simple phenomenon. It is a result of decades old policies and wars steering the situation into a vicious cycle. And a social boycott of a certain fraction in society is unlikely to get any favourable outcomes.


The Uncertainty of the Future
As evident from the case of Brexit; leaving EU cannot be an overnight matter. Legal obstacles and economic repercussions make it a lengthy bureaucratic process. Nationalist parties try maneuvering Brexit to their advantage, citing it as an example to follow. However, the subsequent economic crunch and the overall “guilt” sentiment in UK – at least in the short-term – may actually thwart their attempts. Frexit may seem a far-fetched idea, but so did Brexit at one time. Even if Frexit realizes, which is still quite improbable, the EU is likely to hold itself with Germany assuming the sole-leader role. Sub-blocs within EU may spring up and EU could lose its prominence in world politics. That being said, this strong wave of nationalism may recede before a major change is realized. In any case, Europeans remain unconvinced by years-old promises of how globalization will make their daily lives better than before. A rollback was thus imminent.

 

The writer is a visiting student at EDHEC Business School, France.

E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

 
10
January

ہارٹ آف ایشیا کانفرنس میں بھارت کا منفی رویہ

Published in Hilal Urdu

تحریر: محمد اکرم ذکی

سابق سیکرٹری جنرل و وزیر مملکت وزارت خارجہ۔پاکستان

آف ایشیا کانفرنس میں پاکستان کے مشیر خارجہ کوہوٹل سے باہر نہ آنے دینا سفارتی آداب کی خلاف ورزی سے کہیں بڑھ کر حبس بے جا میں رکھنے کا مجرمانہ فعل ہے۔ اس فعل سے بھارت نے واضح طور پر اپنے اسی جارحانہ پیغام کو ایک مرتبہ پھر دہرایا ہے۔ دشمنی پر مبنی جو پیغام وہ تسلسل کے ساتھ پاکستان کو دے رہا ہے اور پاکستان خطے کے وسیع تر مفاد میں امن اور دوستی کی خواہشات کو مقدم رکھے ہوئے ہے۔ بھارت کے ساتھ خوشگوار تعلقات کا خواب دیکھنے والے مقتدر حلقے کی آنکھیں اب کھل جانی چاہئے اور انہیں اس تلخ حقیقت کا ادراک کرلینا چاہئے کہ پاکستان کی ترقی، استحکام،امن اور سب سے بڑھ کرپاکستان کے وجود کو بھارت کی جانب سے حقیقی و سنگین خطرات درپیش ہیں اور بھارت پاکستان کے خلاف اپنے مذموم عزائم کی تکمیل کی خاطر کسی بھی حد تک جاسکتا ہے۔ پاکستان کے خلاف جارحانہ و دشمنانہ کردار کی ایک بڑی وجہ یہ بھی ہے کہ بھارت اب علاقائی بالادستی کے خواب سے آگے بڑھ کر دنیا کی بڑی طاقتوں میں شمولیت کے پروگرام پر عمل پیرا ہے۔ اس مقصد کے حصول کے لئے وہ نہ صرف اپنی جنگی اور ایٹمی صلاحیت کو مسلسل بڑھا رہا ہے بلکہ خطے کے تمام ممالک کو اپنی تابعداری میں لینے کی کوشش بھی کررہا ہے۔بڑی جنگی طاقتوں میں اپنا شمار کرانے کے لئے بھارت نے جوہری پروگرام کو وسیع کرکے امریکہ ، جاپان اور آسٹریلیا سے جوہری معاہدے کئے ہیں۔نئے نیوکلیئر ڈاکٹر ائن کے تحت اپنی تینوں افواج کو ایٹمی صلاحیت سے لیس کیا ہے ۔ کسی بھی بحری فوج کے پاس ایٹمی قوت کی موجودگی اس حوالے سے زیادہ خطرناک سمجھی جاتی ہے ،کیونکہ اسے مارک کرکے نشانہ بنانا مشکل ہوتا ہے۔ سلامتی کونسل میں مستقل نشست،خطے پہ بالادستی و اجارہ داری اوربڑی طاقتوں میں شماربھارت کی ایسی خواہشات ہیں کہ جن کی تکمیل کی راہ میں وہ پاکستان کو رکاوٹ سمجھتا ہے۔ اس رکاوٹ کو ہٹانے یا ختم کرنے کے لئے بھارت پاکستان کے خلاف ایک باقاعدہ پروگرام پہ کاربند ہے۔

 

hartofasia.jpgاس پروگرام میں پاکستان کو داخلی و خارجی سطح پر عدم استحکام کا شکار کرنا، پاکستان کو تنہا کرنا، تعمیر و ترقی کے دروازے بند کرنا، خطے کے ممالک کے ساتھ تعلقات میں بگاڑ اور بالخصوص دہشت گردی کے خلاف جنگ میں پاکستان کی قربانیوں کو نظرانداز کرانے کے لئے الزامات کا لامتناہی سلسلہ جاری رکھنا شامل ہے۔ پاکستان کے خلاف اس بھارتی پروگرام کو اگر امریکی حمایت حاصل ہے تو یہ کوئی اچنبھے کی بات نہیں۔ سوویت یونین کے ٹوٹنے کے بعد امریکہ نے اپنا مرکزی حریف چین کو قرار دیا اور اپنی پالیسی ترتیب دی جس میں بھارت کو چین کے مدمقابل لانا شامل تھا۔ اس پالیسی کے تحت امریکہ نے بھارت کے ساتھ بڑے دفاعی و جوہری معاہدے کئے ۔ 2001ء میں صدر بش نے بھارت کے ساتھ میزائل ڈیفنس سسٹم معاہدہ کیا۔ 2005میں نیوکلیئر ڈیل اور اس کے علاوہ بے تحاشہ اسلحہ دینے کے معاہدے کئے۔ اب امریکہ اور بھارت نے ایک دوسرے کے بیسز استعمال کرنے اور لاجسٹک امداد کے معاہدے کئے ہیں۔ بھارت چین کے خلاف امریکہ سے تعاون پر مبنی پالیسی کی قیمت پاکستان مخالف پالیسی میں امریکی حمایت و مدد کی صورت میں مانگتا ہے۔ چنانچہ پاکستان کے خلاف بھارتی جارحانہ و دشمنانہ رویے پہ عالمی خاموشی باعث حیرت نہیں ہونی چاہئے۔


پاکستان کے خلاف بھارت کے عزائم حالیہ دور حکومت یا موجودہ عشرے میں جارحانہ نہیں ہوئے بلکہ قیام پاکستان کے بعد سے ہی بھارت پاکستان کی سلامتی کے خلاف سرگرم تھا۔ پاکستان پر جنگیں مسلط کیں۔ پہلے کشمیر پہ قبضہ کیا، پھر مشرقی پاکستان کو الگ کرنے میں اپنا گھناؤنا کردار ادا کیا ۔ پاکستان کے پانیوں پر قبضے کی پالیسی اختیار کی۔ کشمیر میں ظلم و ستم کے پہاڑ ڈھائے۔ آزادئ کشمیر کے لئے جو تحریک اٹھی تو اسے دہشت گرد قرار دیا۔ نریندر مودی حکومت کے آنے کے بعد بھارتی کردار جارحانہ نہیں بلکہ بے نقاب ہوا۔ نریندر مودی نے بھارتی پالیسی کو واضح اور عیاں کیا۔ یہاں تک کہ پاکستان کو دولخت کرنے کا اقبال جرم بھی سینہ تان کر سابق مشرقی پاکستان میں کیا۔ پاکستان کو تقسیم در تقسیم کرنے کی دیرینہ بھارتی خواہش کو عملی جامہ پہناتے ہوئے مودی نے بلوچستان اور گلگت بلتستان کی آزادی کی بھی باتیں شروع کردیں۔ دہشت گردی کے نام سے پاکستان کے خلاف واویلا کرکے پہلے دباؤمیں رکھنے کی کوشش کی۔ جب پاک افواج نے دہشت گردوں کے خلاف فیصلہ کن آپریشن ضرب عضب شروع کیا تو بھارت نے ایک جانب مشرقی سرحد پر بلااشتعال فائرنگ اور شیلنگ کا سلسلہ وقفے وقفے سے شروع کردیا تو دوسری جانب لائن آف کنٹرول پر بھی جارحیت شروع کردی۔ اسی پر ہی اکتفا نہیں کیا بلکہ افغانستان کے ذریعے مغربی سرحد پر بھی پاک فوج کو مصروف کرنے کی کوشش کی۔ یہ پاک فوج کی پیشہ ورانہ مہارت اور اعلیٰ صلاحیتوں کا ہی مظہر ہے کہ بھارت کی جانب سے بیک وقت کھولے گئے کئی محاذوں پر افواج پاکستان نے دشمن کو دندان شکن جواب دیا۔ اجیت دوول ڈاکٹرائن کہ ’’پاکستان میں گھس کر اسے تباہ کرو‘‘ کو عملی طور پر پاک فوج نے اپنی مؤثر حکمتِ عملی سے توڑا ہے۔


مودی حکومت نے پاکستان کے خلاف دوسرا بڑا محاذ سفارتی سطح پر کھولا ، جس کا مقصد عالمی برادری میں پاکستان کو تنہا کرنا ہے۔ اس مقصد کے حصول کے لئے پاکستان کے تمام دوست جن میں چین، سعودی عرب، ایران، عرب امارات، افغانستان، وسطی ایشیائی ریاستیں وغیرہ شامل ہیں، ان تمام ممالک سے بھارت نے نہ صرف تجارت اور تعلقات کو فروغ دیا ہے بلکہ پاک چین اقتصادی راہداری منصوبے کے خلاف چین میں جاکرا حتجاج کیا ہے۔ اسی طرح پاکستان کو توانائی کے بحران میں مبتلا رکھنے کے لئے پہلے پاک ایران گیس پائپ لائن منصوبے میں سے نکل کراسے ناکام بنانے کی کوشش کی اور پھر ترکمانستان، افغانستان، پاکستان، انڈیاگیس منصوبے میں شامل ہوکر افغانستان سے پاکستان کے اندر دراندازی میں اضافہ کردیا۔ پاک افغان کشیدگی بڑھانے کے جہاں دیگر مقاصد ہیں وہاں ایک بڑا بھارتی مقصد یہ بھی ہے کہ ترکمانستان، افغانستان، پاکستان، انڈیا منصوبہ بھی کھٹائی میں پڑے۔ اگر کامیاب بھی ہو تو بھی پاکستان کی توانائی سپلائی لائن افغانستان میں بھارتی پیر کے نیچے رہے۔ اسی طرح بھارت نے سعودی عرب اور عرب امارات کے ساتھ کئی معاہدے کئے۔ بھارت نے بہار میں سرمایہ کاری اور ایران، افغانستان، بھارت کوریڈور بناکر وسطی ایشیائی ریاستوں تک رسائی کا وہ منصوبہ شروع کیا،جس میں پاکستان شامل نہیں ، حالانکہ وسطی ایشیائی ریاستوں کا سہل اور محفوظ راستہ پاکستان افغانستان سے گزرتا ہے۔ جس طرح پاک افغان تعلقات میں خرابی کے لئے بھارت افغانستان میں سرگرم ہے، اسی طرح پاک ایران تعلقات میں خرابی پیدا کرنے کا بھی کوئی موقع ہاتھ سے نہیں جانے دیتا ۔ اسلامی جمہوریہ ایران کے صدر حسن روحانی پاکستان کے دورے پر پاک چین اقتصادی کوریڈور میں شامل ہونے کی خواہش لے کر آئے تھے۔ عین اسی وقت کلبھوشن کا معاملہ سامنے آیا اور ایسا پہلی مرتبہ ہوا کہ بھارت نے نہ صرف کلبھوشن کو اپنا جاسوس تسلیم کیا بلکہ فوری طور پر اس کی فیملی کے افراد بھی میڈیا پر لے آیا۔میڈیا کے ذریعے تاثر یہ دینا مقصود تھا کہ پاک چین اقتصادی راہداری کے خلاف ایران اور بھارت ایک ہیں، حالانکہ بلوچستان کے معاملے پر پاکستان اور ایران ایک جبکہ بھارت اور اسرائیل مخالف صفحہ پر موجود ہیں، جبکہ گوادر اورسی پیک کا بنیادی تعلق بلوچستان سے ہے۔ جس طرح پاکستانی بلوچستان میں بھارت مداخلت کررہا ہے اور یہاں بغاوت کا بیج بونے کی کوششوں میں مصروف عمل ہے ، اسی طرح ایرانی بلوچستان کے خلاف اسرائیل سرگرم ہے اور اس مقصد کے لئے بھارتی زمین استعمال کررہا ہے۔حال ہی میں اسرائیلی صدر نے بھارت کا طویل ترین دورہ بھی کیا ہے۔چنانچہ سی پیک میں شامل ہونے کی ایرانی خواہش کا نہ صرف چین نے خیر مقدم کیا بلکہ پاکستان نے بھی اسے خوش آئند قرار دیا۔ یہی وجہ ہے کہ چند روز قبل سی پیک کی آفیشل ویب سائٹ کی افتتاحی تقریب میں چین اور ایران کے سفیروں نے خصوصی شرکت کی۔


سی پیک کو ناکام بنانے اور اس کی سکیورٹی مشکوک کرنے کے لئے دہشت گردانہ حملے جاری ہیں۔ چین سے گوادر کے لئے پہلے برآمد ی قافلے کی روانگی سے چار روز قبل پولیس ٹریننگ سکول کوئٹہ میں دہشت گردی کا اندوہناک سانحہ پیش آیا۔ برآمدی قافلے کے گوادر پہنچ جانے کے اگلے روز اور گوادر کی افتتاحی تقریب سے محض ایک روز قبل دربار شاہ نورانی میں خودکش حملہ ہوا۔ دہشت گردی کے دونوں واقعات میں بھارتی عنصر براہ راست ملوث پایا گیا ہے۔ اسی طرح پشاور، فاٹا، کراچی و ملک کے دیگر شہروں میں پیش آنے والے سانحات کا سرا افغانستان میں موجود کالعدم تنظیموں سے جاملتا ہے ۔ جو بھارتی چھتر چھایا میں پاکستان کے خلاف دہشت گردی کا بازار گرم کئے ہوئے ہیں۔ علاوہ ازیں پاک فوج کے جوانوں نے اسی عرصے میں آبی حدود کی خلاف ورزی کرنے والی سب میرین کا راستہ روکا اور پاک فضائی حدود کی خلاف ورزی کرنے والے ایک بھارتی ڈرون کو بھی مار گرایا۔


تیسرا قبیح عمل مقبوضہ وادی میں ریاستی طاقت کے حیوانی استعمال کی صورت میں بھارت سرانجام دے رہا ہے۔ مقبوضہ وادی میں برہان وانی کی المناک شہادت کے بعد کشمیری نوجوانوں کی جو تحریک آزادی کے نعرے کے ساتھ اٹھی اس کو کچلنے کے لئے بھارت ظلم و جبر کی تمام حدیں پار کرچکا ہے۔ وانی کی شہادت کے بعد بیسیوں نوجوان شہید، سینکڑوں نوجوان، بچے، خواتین پیلٹ گن کا نشانہ بن کر اپنی بینائی کھوچکے ہیں۔ نوجوان بچیاں، مستورات لاپتا ہیں۔ سینکڑوں نوجوان، طالب علم زیر حراست ہیں۔ بجائے اس ظلم پر شرمندگی محسوس کرنے کے بھارت مقبوضہ وادی میں آزادی کی اس تحریک کو بھی پاک بھارت مسئلہ بنا کر پیش کرنے میں مصروف عمل ہے۔


پیش کردہ حالات و واقعات اتنے پرانے نہیں ہیں کہ جو اس سے قبل کسی عالمی یا علاقائی فورم پر پاکستان کی جانب سے پیش نہ کئے گئے ہوں۔ ہارٹ آف ایشیا کانفرنس میں بھارت کی جانب سے سفارتی آداب کی خلاف ورزی سے بڑھ کر مجرمانہ رویہ اپنانے کی وجہ یوں بھی سمجھ میں آتی ہے کہ بھارت’’الٹا چور کوتوال کو ڈانٹے ‘‘ کے مصداق اپنے جرائم پر پردہ ڈال کے پاکستان کو ’’مجرم‘‘ثابت کرنے پر کمربستہ ہے۔ شائد یہی وجہ ہے کہ پاکستانی مشیر خارجہ کو حبس بے جا میں رکھا نہ تو انہیں ترجمان سے ملنے دیا گیا اور نہ ہی گنے چنے موجود پاکستانی صحافیوں سے۔ حالانکہ ابھی نریندر مودی کو پاکستانی حکمرانوں کی میزبانی سے لطف اندوز ہوئے پورا ایک سال بھی مکمل نہیں ہواتھا۔


ضرورت اس امر کی ہے کہ سب سے پہلے ہم خود یہ باور کریں کہ بھارت کی پاکستان دشمنی ایک حقیقت ہے۔ پاکستان کو بھارت کی جانب سے مستقل، طویل المدت اور سنجیدہ خطرے کا سامنا ہے ۔ جس سے نمٹنے کے لئے عسکری ، سیاسی قوتوں کے ساتھ ساتھ سول سوسائٹی ، میڈیا کو بھی اپنا مستقل اور ذمہ دارانہ کردار ادا کرنا ہوگا۔ پاکستان کو مربوط، جامع ،مستقل اور طویل المدت پالیسی اپنا نی ہوگی۔ سول ملٹری قیادت کو مشترکہ حکمت عملی اپنانی ہوگی۔ دشمن کا مقابلہ کرنے کے لئے عسکری قوت کو مضبوط سے مضبوط تر کرنا ہوگا۔ سول انتظامیہ و پولیس کے ذریعے اندرونی انتشاریوں سے سخت رویہ اپنا نا ہوگا۔ بھارتی میڈیا ایک بمبئی سانحہ کو لے کر دنیا میں پاکستان دشمنی کا ڈھول پیٹ رہا ہے جبکہ ہمارا آزاد میڈیا سمجھوتہ ایکسپریس، مالگاؤں کویاد کرنا تو درکنار اے پی ایس، سانحہ چارسدہ یونیورسٹی، کوئٹہ کچہری حملہ، پولیس لائن حملے ودیگر بیسیوں ایسے سانحات کو فراموش کرچکا ہے جن میں بھارت براہِ راست ملوث تھا۔ ہمارے میڈیا کو بھی سلامتی کے امور میں قدم بہ قدم ملک و قوم کی ترجمانی کرنی ہوگی۔ بیرونی ممالک میں موجود ہمارے سفارتخانوں کو بھی موثرانداز میں اپنا نقطہ نظر دنیا پر واضح کرنا ہوگا، اور دنیاکو یہ باور کرانا ہوگا کہ پاکستان میں جاری دہشت گردی کی سرپرستی بھارت کررہا ہے اور پاکستان دہشت گردی کے خلاف جنگ میں بیش بہا قربانی دے رہا ہے۔ عمومی طور پر بھارت کے حوالے سے ہماری پالیسی ردعمل یاسستی کا شکار رہتی ہے مگر اب اس بات کی شدید ضرورت ہے کہ ردعمل سے نکل کر سفارتی و سیاسی محاذپر پیش قدمی کریں۔ بھارتی رعونت اور جارحیت کے خلاف ایک جامع، مربوط اور طویل المدت پالیسی ترتیب دیں جس پر صبر و تحمل سے عمل پیرا ہوکر بھارتی عزائم کو ناکام بنایا جائے۔
(آمین)

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
ضرورت اس امر کی ہے کہ سب سے پہلے ہم خود یہ باور کریں کہ بھارت کی پاکستان دشمنی ایک حقیقت ہے۔ پاکستان کو بھارت کی جانب سے مستقل، طویل المدت اور سنجیدہ خطرے کا سامنا ہے ۔ جس سے نمٹنے کے لئے عسکری ، سیاسی قوتوں کے ساتھ ساتھ سول سوسائٹی ، میڈیا کو بھی اپنا مستقل اور ذمہ دارانہ کردار ادا کرنا ہوگا۔

*****

 

Follow Us On Twitter