reader-list Digest, Vol 80, Issue 24

[reader-list-request]

Send reader-list mailing list submissions to
        reader-l...@sarai.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        reader-list-requ...@sarai.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
        reader-list-ow...@sarai.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of reader-list digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. INSTRUMENT OF ACCESSION OF KALAT STATE (Pawan Durani)
   2. Kalat's occupation by Paki army in 1948 (Pawan Durani)
   3. Re: Taliban is the future (Kshmendra Kaul)

--- Begin Message ---

INSTRUMENT OF ACCESSION OF KALAT STATE
[image: Open in new
window]<javascript:CaricaFoto("http://www.balochvoice.com/Pictures/Urdu_News/instru3.gif";);>
WHEREAS the Indian Independence Act, 1947, provides that as from the
fifteenth day of August, 1947, there shall be set up an independent Dominion
known as PAKISTAN, and that the Government of India Act, 1935 shall, with
such omissions, additions, adaptations and modifications as the
Governor-General may by order specify, be applicable to the Dominion of
Pakistan;

AND WHEREAS the Government of India Act, 1935, as so adapted by the
Governor-General provides that an Indian State may accede to the Dominion of
Pakistan by an Instrument of Accession executed by the Ruler thereof:



NOW THEREFORE

I, His Highness Baglar Begi Khan of Kalat (signed) Ruler of Kalat State in,
the exercise of my sovereignt; in and over my said State DO hereby execute
this my Instrument of Accession and

1. I hereby declare that I accede to the Dominion of Pakistan with the
intent that the Governor-General of Pakistan, the Dominion Legislature, the
Supreme Court and any other Dominion authority established for the purposes
of the Dominion shall, by virtue of this my Instrument of Accession, but
subject always to the terms thereof, and for the purposes only Dominion,
exercise 1n relation to the State of Kalat (hereinafter referred to as “this
State”) such functions as may be vested in them by or under the Government
of India Act, 1935, as in force ,in the Dominion of Pakistan on the 15th day
of August 1947 (which Act as so in force is hereinafter referred to as “the
Act”).

2. I hereby assume the obligation of ensuring that due effect is given to
the provisions of the Act within this State so far as they are applicable
therein by virtue of this My Instrument of Accession.

3. I accept the matters specified in the Schedule hereto as the matters with
respect to which the Dominion Legislature may make laws for this State.

4. I hereby declare that I accede to the Dominion of Pakistan on the
assurance that if an agreement is made between the Governor-General and the
Ruler of this State whereby any functions in relation to the administration
in this State of any law of the Dominion Legislature shall be exercised by
the Ruler of this State, then any such agreement shall be deemed to form
part of this Instrument and shall be construed end have effect accordingly.

5. Nothing in this Instrument shall empower the Dominion Legislature to make
any law for this State authorising the compulsory acquisition of land for
any purpose, but I hereby undertake that should the Dominion for the
purposes of a Dominion law which applies in this State deem it necessary to
acquire any land, I will at their request acquire the land at their expense
or if the land belongs to me transfer it to them on such terms as may be
agreed, or, in default of agreement, determined by an arbitrator to be
appointed by the Chief Justice of Pakistan.

6. The terms of this my Instrument of Accession shall not be varied by any
amendment of the Act or of the Indian Inde pendence Act, 1947, unless such
amendment is accepted by me by an Instrument supplementary to this
Instrument.

7. Nothing in this Instrument shall be deemed to commit me in any way to
acceptance of any future constitution of Pakistan or to fetter my discretion
to enter into arrangements with the Government of Pakistan under any such
future constitution.

8. Nothing, in this Instrument affects the continuance of my sovereignty in
and over this State, or, Save as provided by or under this Instrument, the
exercise of any powers, authority and rights now enjoyed by me as Ruler of
this State or the validity of any law at present in force in this State.

9. I hereby declare that I execute this Instrument on behalf of this State
and that any reference in this Instrument to me or to the Ruler of the State
is to be construed as including a reference to my heirs and successors.

Given under my hand this 27th March 1948. Nineteen hundred and forty eight

Signed by: His Highness Baglar Begi Khan of Kalat

(Ruler of Kalat State)

--- End Message ---

--- Begin Message ---

That Kalat is an independent and sovereign state its status is different
from other princely states of British India, its relations with the British
government being based on various mutual agreements and treaties.

That Kalat is not an Indian state, its relations with India being of only a
formal nature by virtue of Kalat's agreements with the British and that with
the ceasing of the Agreement of 1876 with the Kalat government, Kalat would
regain its complete independence, as it existed prior to 1876. All such
regions including Quetta Municipality as were given under the control of the
British in consequence of any treaty will be returned to the sovereignty of
the Kalat state, and resume their original status as parts of the Kalat
state.

On March 22, 1947, Lord Mountbatten, the last of the Viceroys of India,
arrived in Delhi to wind up British supremacy in this part of the British
dominions. The final partition plan of June 3, 1947 stated in respect of
transfer of power in India. Mr, Jinnah wrote to the Khan of Kalat that since
the position of the Kalat State was different from the other Indian States,
representation on behalf of the state should be made directly to the Viceroy
in Delhi to discuss the future position of Kalat and the return of Baloch
regions hitherto under the control of the British Government. Accordingly,
the Chief Secretary of Kalat State was sent to Delhi with a draft of the new
position of Kalat as prepared by legal experts. This resulted in a round
table conference, held on August 4, 1947, in which Lord Mountbatten, Mr,
Jinnah, Mr Liaqat Ali Khan, Chief Minister of Kalat, Sir Sultan Ahmed, the
legal Advisor of Kalat State and the Khan of Kalat took part in the
deliberations The following points were agreed upon:

"Kalat State will be independent on August 5, 1947, enjoying the same status
as it originally held in 1838, having friendly relations with its
neighbours. In case the relations of Kalat with any future government got
strained, Kalat will exercise its right of self-determination, and the
British Government should take precautionary measures to help Kalat in the
matter as per the Treaties of 1839 and 1841."

As a corollary to the round table conference at Delhi, another agreement was
signed between Kalat and Pakistan on August 4, 1947. The points agreed upon
were broadcast on August 11, 1947, as under:

"The Government of Pakistan agrees that Kalat is an independent state, being
quite different in status from other states of India; and commits to its
relations with the British Government as manifested in several
agreements..... In the meantime, a Standstill Agreement will be made between
Pakistan and Kalat by which Pakistan shall stand committed to all the
responsibilities and agreements signed by Kalat and the British Government
from 1839 to 1947 and by this,.... In order to discuss finally the relations
between Kalat and Pakistan on matters of defense, foreign relations and
deliberations will be held in the near future in Karachi." A few weeks after
the agreement, the Agent to the Governor-General informed the rulers of
Kharan and Lasbela that the control of their regions had been transferred to
the Kalat State. Hence they once again came under the direct influence of
Kalat. The Marri and Bugti tribal region was also returned into the Kalat
fold soon after. Thus the whole of Balochistan came under the suzerainty of
the Khan of Kalat in the same confederacy of Baloch tribes that Nasir Khan
I, in 1666-67, was able to create. The Kalat government made a formal
declaration of its independence on August 15, 1947, soon after the end of
British supremacy, and a day after Pakistan's coming into being on the map
of the subcontinent. Immediately, a delegation comprising the Kalat prime
minister and foreign minister was sent to Karachi, the then capital of
Pakistan, for discussions and an honorable settlement vis-a-vis relations
with Pakistan in the light of the mutually endorsed Standstill Agreement of
August 11, 1947.

To shock and grief of Khan of Kalat Mr, Jinnah coarsely persuaded the Khan
to expedite the merger. The Khan replied, "I have great respect for your
advice......but Balochistan, being a land of numerous tribes, the people
there must be duly consulted in the matter prior to any decision I take;
for, according to the prevalent tribal convention, no decision can be
binding upon them unless they are taken into confidence beforehand by their
Khan."

With this provisional agreement, the Khan returned to Kalat and promptly
summoned the Kalat State Houses of Parliament, the Dar-ul-Awam and
Dar-ul-Umra and proposed to the House to accord him a mandate on the matter
of Kalat's merger with Pakistan. Both the Houses, however, contended
unanimously that the proposal of Kalat's merger militated against the spirit
of the earlier agreement arrived at between Kalat Government and the
spokesmen of Pakistan on August 4, 1947, as also against the Independence
Act of 1947.

This decision of Kalat's Parliament was forwarded to the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, Government of Pakistan, for necessary processing. Shortly
afterwords, the Mr, Jinnah visited Sibi and during his stay there insisted
upon the Khan to sign the merger documents in his personal capacity. Finding
reluctance in Khan Govt: Pakistan Cabinet under the leadership and
instruction of Mr, Jinnah working on a scheme to breakup the 500-year old
state. The nature of their scheme, as it turned out subsequently, was
tantamount to a political castration of the Baloch people.

Illegally and in violation of of 4th August 1947 round table conference
declaration and agreement made by Mr, Jinnah on the very day with Khan,
Stand Still Agreement and also Govt; of Pakistan's earlier decion, it had
decided to punish and encircle Kalat and Baloch people cut off Kharan and
Lasbela by giving them an equal status as Kalat and obtaining their
"mergers" with Pakistan directly. Makran, which had been a part of the Kalat
State for the last 300 years, was made independent of Kalat on March 17,
1948; and one of the three Sardars made its ruler.

Thus Makran, too, was made a part of Pakistan. These hasty, illogical,
irrational and politically illegal and oppressive steps naturally
disillusioned the Baloch people. They rightly felt that all their erstwhile
services and sacrifices in the cause of Pakistan were now forgotten. So deep
was their despair and frustration that several of them wanted to revolt.
Meanwhile, the wave of hatred and animosity generated by the irrational
policies of the Government of Pakistan against Kalat was fast gaining
dangerous dimensions all over Balochistan. Feelings in the tribal areas
particularly were running high against Pakistan and the Baloch people were
calling the position of the Khan of Kalat himself into question.

Things were moving fast towards a show down. The Government of Pakistan
instructed the Brigadier in Command at Quetta to go on full alert for action
against Kalat state and the Agent to the Governor General began to prepare
for police action. This was the situation as it stood in the first quarter
of 1948 triggered by the illogical actions of the Pakistan.

Under duress Khan of Kalat signed the merger documents in his personal
capacity on March 27, 1948, in an effort to diffuse the situation in
Balochistan. In his autobiography, he admits that he did not have the
mandate to sign the merger without the consent of the Houses of Parliament
of Kalat State. A fortnight after the merger, on April 15, 1948, the Agent
to the Governor General in Balochistan issued an order in the name of Mr,
Jinnah, and the legal entity of the Khan of Kalat was abolished and within
20 hours of the order many of the members of the Balochistan Cabinet were
arrested or exiled from Balochistan. Prince Abdul Karim's revolt and first
Baloch armed struggle sarted in this back ground. By Hussain Bux Thebo
30.3.07

--- End Message ---

--- Begin Message ---

Dear Pawan
 
Why would you want to wait for 3 years? India is already fighting the Taliban 
within India.
 
One should not get confused by different names identifying groups. Al-Qaeda, 
Taliban, LET, HUJI etc etc etc; they are all the same ideologically.
 
That is why I stressed upon this that, instead of political/militaristic 
adventurism in alien lands, India should be "defending and insulating India 
from the religious and political adventurism of inimical neighbours." 
 
I must add; what India also needs to do is to deal sensitively with the plaints 
of the citizens and by doing so shield them from being easy prey for 
recruitment by the religious extremists/terrorists from any religion.
 
Kshmendra
   

--- On Tue, 3/9/10, Pawan Durani <pawan.dur...@gmail.com> wrote:


From: Pawan Durani <pawan.dur...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Taliban is the future
To: "Kshmendra Kaul" <kshmendra2...@yahoo.com>
Cc: "reader-list" <reader-l...@sarai.net>
Date: Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 5:17 PM


Dear Mr Kaul , 


My view on this is different . 


I believe that if we do not fight Taliban in Afghanisatn now , we would be 
fighting them in India 3 years from now.


Choice is ours.


Pawan


On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Kshmendra Kaul <kshmendra2...@yahoo.com> wrote:






Dear Pawan
 
I would agree with Gen Hamid Gul that "Taliban is the future". Not only for 
Afghanistan, which has been explicitly mentioned by Gen Gul but also for 
Pakistan, which Gen Gul might be hesitant in mentioning but about which there 
is no ambiguity that Gen Gul would like to see that happen.
 
Afghanistan is likely to see the dislodgement of the present (USA supported) 
government either, if Taliban agrees, by it being integrated with the Taliban 
(as Pakistan and USA also are attempting) , or by a takeover by the Taliban in 
case USA decides not to suffer any further losses in Afghanistan and vacates.
 
It is also likely that such a Taliban-Run Afghanistan will be a smaller 
geographical entity carved out from the present one.
 
Taliban is already integrated into Pakistan. The ideology of the Taliban 
is being furthered in Pakistan, not only by religious teaching and propagation 
but through clearly visible ideological expressions in the Politics, Military, 
Media, Education and Civil Society of Pakistan.
 
If Afghanistan were to go the way projected by me, it would not be long before 
there is an openly Talibanised shift in the governance of Pakistan.
 
I would term the currently seen actions by the Pakistan Military against TTP 
(Tehrik e Taliban Pakistan) as jostling for control between two different 
Talibanised entities.
 
Whatever be the scenarios emerging in Afghanistan and Pakistan, I think it is 
downright stupid of India  to be involved in any which way in Afghanistan in 
what appears to be India's vision of the grandeur of being termed a Regional 
Power.
 
India is better advised to concentrate on improving the lives of the citizens 
of India and altering it's adventures to defending and insulating India from 
the religious and political adventurism of inimical neighbours. 
 
Kshmendra
 

--- On Mon, 3/8/10, Pawan Durani <pawan.dur...@gmail.com> wrote:


From: Pawan Durani <pawan.dur...@gmail.com>
Subject: [Reader-list] Taliban is the future
To: "reader-list" <reader-l...@sarai.net>
Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 7:56 PM





Dear Readers ,

Before I am being misinterpreted once again , i wish to clarify that the
subject line is not mine . This is a statement by Gen Hamid Gul of
Pakistan.

The reason I am sharing his interview is for the reason that I found his
thoughts very similar to Lashkar & Taliban. Just wanted to know if others
feel the same ?

Pawan Durani


http://generalhamidgul.com/home

“America is history, Karzai is history, the Taliban are the future”

You recently said 'the Taliban is the future, the Americans are the past in
Afghanistan'. Isn't that a little far-fetched?

The Americans are defeated. It isn't necessarily because their firepower and
their might has weakened, but it is because their own people are sick and
tired [of engagement in Afghanistan]. There is fatigue now, fatigue is the
threat and is the worst thing for a nation to suffer from. There is no way
that the Americans can hold on to Afghanistan.

Could that lead to [Afghanistan President] Hamid Karzai's government being
toppled?

Karzai is no more. He is now fighting for his life. They have already
started telling him that by the end of this year he will have to shoulder
the responsibility of security in Afghanistan. But what are they giving him
for this? Nothing at all. In fact, more civilian casualties in military
operations are going to weaken Karzai's position.

Some in Afghanistan believe that the extent of civilian casualties has
empowered the Taliban's resurgence.

It is not only that. While the civilian casualties have certainly made the
Taliban a popular movement in Afghanistan - some 80 per cent of the
population support them - the people of Afghanistan are fed up with
corruption.

They are sick of the influence of warlords and drug barons, and the
continued American occupation.
If it was a shot stint - come in and get out after completing the job - the
situation would have been different. But the Americans didn't do that. If
they wanted to disperse al-Qaeda, they succeeded after the first year, and
after that they should have pulled out. The fact they stayed on betrays
their real intentions in Afghanistan until Barack Obama, the US president,
came and started talking about withdrawal.

It was only last December that Obama announced that the US will pull out of
Afghanistan. Hillary Clinton said the same thing, but there is a dichotomy.

On the one hand they say 'We are not here to stay in Afghanistan', but on
the other hand they carry out surges and want to prop up and build the
Afghan Army.

However, they don't give the money to build the Afghan Army - just $140mn.
Compare this to how much it costs the US to keep just one soldier in
Afghanistan - $1mn dollars per soldier per year in Afghanistan. They have
now about 68,000 US troops. It is currently costing them $65bn just to
maintain these troops. There are another 30,000 US troops now coming, so it
will cost the US $100bn a year to maintain its forces in Afghanistan.

The US is a heavily indebted nation so how are they going to afford this?
Some 57 per cent of Americans in the polls say they don't like this war and
want their boys to return home. The Americans can't take casualties, that is
their problem. To compensate, they started employing security contractors,
some 104,000 security contractors currently in Afghanistan.

What does this mean? Mercenaries to be used where troops cannot be deployed?
We have already seen what mercenaries did in Iraq. The Americans are more
and more inclined - because the US military cannot suffer casualties - to
employ mercenaries, not just from the US but also from the local population.

This is a very dangerous trend if we are to believe that mercenaries can win
wars and carry forward the political objectives of the country. This means
that whoever has more money can employ more mercenaries, win wars, win
territories, etc.

Given everything you have just said, how do you think the latest US and Nato
offensive against the Taliban is going to play out?

It is not going to work. I think it is an 'eye wash', it has political
purpose back home. But there is no political purpose for Afghanistan. They
are saying that they are protecting the civilian population, but they are
dislodging the civilians from their homes in very harsh weather conditions
in Afghanistan.
The cold winds from the steppes of Central Asia sweep these regions. When
you launch such military operations, the people are inevitably dislodged and
their fields abandoned. In this situation, what are the Americans trying to
achieve - I don't know.

There is much ambiguity about their political objectives. Every military
conflict must have a political purpose. I cannot discern that there is any
political purpose.

>From a strategic point of view, Pakistan's involvement in Afghanistan has
been seen as setting up a buffer, or deterrent, to India. But now that
Pakistan has nuclear capability, how important is Afghanistan to Islamabad?

We want a friendly Afghanistan. We know India is playing havoc with us. The
Pakistani Taliban are being sponsored by the Indian intelligence and the
Mossad, by the way, to carry out their attacks in Pakistan. The Mossad is
very active in Pakistan and they are providing all the guidance and
technical support to the Indian intelligence. So, Pakistan has to have its
back covered - no country can fight on two fronts.

We have to have a friendly Afghanistan, this does not mean that we dominate
Afghanistan. No one can dominate Afghanistan, a country which has already
buried two superpowers and the third one is about to be buried there.

No, that's not the purpose Pakistan has in Afghanistan.

Is the failure to stabilise Afghanistan adversely affecting Pakistan's own
security?

Yes, indeed it is. The conflict is not just derivative of the failures of
the Kabul government - that is a puppet government. The real cause of the
conflict is the occupation of Afghanistan by the Americans. If they go out,
and after such a time - post-US occupation, the OIC and the Muslim countries
have to come in and play their part. Then Afghanistan can redeem itself.

I do not think that Afghanistan will be another Vietnam for the Americans
because they have said they will pull out. Obama is a president who is very
clear. In his State of the Union address, I think it was clear he was not
addressing terrorism but instead focusing on such internal issues as
healthcare, unemployment and debt servicing.

It appears he is more focused on the domestic front than foreign affairs.
You can't focus on both at the same time.

There has been a surge in violence in Pakistan since the exit of Pervez
Musharraf, the former president. The Pakistani Taliban threaten towns and
cities, and there are tensions between the PPP and MQM in key ports like
Karachi. What is needed to stabilise Pakistan right now?

Political cleaning up of the mess. The rule of law must take root in
Pakistan. Unfortunately, the more powerful among the politicians and
generals, when it comes to their turn - whether by martial law or civilian
democracy - they want to run the affairs of the country according to their
own predilections and propensities. And that is where we go wrong.

The political institution has to be set right; the Supreme Court and
Parliament must be empowered. Right now, all the power is vested under the
17th Amendment, which was an amendment to the constitution passed by the
dictator Musharraf in 2003. This gave more power to the office of the
president and the ability to bypass the constitution and remain in
leadership irrespective of elections.
Asif Ali Zardari, the Pakistani president, now has that power and he is
refusing to budge. So, the 17th Amendment has to go, Parliament has to be
empowered, rule of law by the Supreme Court has to be established and the
army must not interfere. Then things will begin to fall in place and we will
take the right direction.

Do you think the US is helping Zardari stay in power because he is seen as
co-operating in the so-called war on terror?
I think there is ambivalence in their position and they sometimes do
criticise him. The American press has in the past bashed Zardari, but it has
gone quiet now. The Americans fear the return of the Supreme Court in
Pakistan because it could rule that the US drone attacks are violations of
the country's sovereignty.

If that happens, Parliament would have to act on the Supreme Court's
decision and reverse the policy. The Americans are sceptical and suspicious
that if the Supreme Court is given free reign in Pakistan, it is likely to
rule against their interests and agenda in Pakistan.

Do you think the government will survive until the next national elections?

The government will survive but I am almost certain Zardari will not. I do
not want to appear to be clairvoyant, but I doubt Zardari has many days left
in government.

In recent years, US officials have accused you of having close ties with the
Taliban and al-Qaeda. How do you respond to that?

No, this is wrong, I have no such ties. As far as al-Qaeda is concerned, I
simply say come up with the evidence for 911. You haven't even charged Osama
bin Laden so far, that means you don't have hard evidence against him. The
full story is yet to come out.
In my opinion, all this is a gimmick, an inside job.

In regards to the Taliban, I support their cause of Afghan resistance. I
lend them my moral support because I have in the past had strong connections
with them. Incidentally, I maintained strong connections with both sides.
Many in the Afghan government are my good friends.

But since the Taliban are representing the national spirit of resistance, I
have given them my voice. The Americans sent my name to the UN Security
Council to put me on a sanctions list and declare me an international
terrorist. But they failed because the Chinese knew the truth well and
blocked that move.
Basically, the Americans have nothing against me. I saw the charges and I
replied to them in the English-language press in Pakistan. I said if they
have anything against me to bring it forward, put me on trial. Tell me what
wrong I have done. I have been taking moral stands. The Americans talk of
freedom of speech, but apparently my speech hurts them because it counters
their excesses.

I won't use the word 'interests' because what US policy-makers are doing
runs against the interests of the American people. If I say this is right
and this is wrong, I am exercising my right and ultimately, this is to the
benefit of the American people.

But Zardari once told a western journal that you are a "political ideologue
of terror".

I wrote a letter to Zardari that I am an ideologue of jihad, which is common
between us. He is a Muslim like me and believes in the Quran. Terror is a
totally different thing. I do not support terror at all, but jihad is our
right when a nation is oppressed. According to the United Nations Charter,
national resistance for liberation is a right. We call this a jihad.


Source: Al-Jazeera
_________________________________________
reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
Critiques & Collaborations
To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-requ...@sarai.net with subscribe in 
the subject header.
To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list 
List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>

--- End Message ---

_______________________________________________
reader-list mailing list
reader-l...@sarai.net
https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list