Books and Documents

Indian Press (02 Aug 2017 NewAgeIslam.Com)

A Blighted Pakistan By Salman Haidar: New Age Islam's Selection, 02 August 2017

New Age Islam Edit Bureau

02 August 2017

A Blighted Pakistan

By Salman Haidar

The Empire Strikes Back

By Rakesh Sood

The Ouster of Nawaz Sharif

By Satinder K Lambah

US’ Pakistan Policy: Time For More Sticks, Fewer Carrots

By Larry Pressler

Mehbooba’s Message Deserves Reciprocation Not Belligerence

By Vinod Sharma

Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau


A Blighted Pakistan

By Salman Haidar

August 2, 2017

With the unexpected removal of Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan has maintained its unenviable record of not permitting any Prime Minister to complete his or her term of office.

Sharif himself had been earlier removed from the PM’s position on more than one occasion, only to regroup, return to the political arena, and reclaim the job. This time, however, nobody anticipates yet another turn of fate that would bring him back. He himself seems to have acknowledged that the curtain has fallen definitively on his political ascendancy.

And yet, in a twist that his opponents may not have anticipated, he has been able to pass the baton to his brother Shahbaz ~ he has to go through the process of being elected to the National Assembly, being at present member of the Punjab State Assembly, whereafter he can be expected to assume leadership of the PML (N), the ruling party in Islamabad, and take over as Prime Minister.

The judicial verdict that precipitated this series of events has not impressed some observers. They have said that the investigation of the wrongdoing attributed to the deposed Prime Minister had been less than thorough, and the judges had been unduly influenced by the media clamour. But despite the shortcomings there can be no disputing the outcome, for Sharif has been toppled and has had to yield the power that until just a few days ago was his to dispense.

With that have followed a number of consequences that may be relevant now and in the future, and although Sharif was a popular politician who enjoyed a strong position in his country’s Parliament, there is little sign of public dismay or agitation at the turn of events.

Within Parliament, there is no evidence of cracks in the ruling party that would encourage ambitions among aspiring successors; on the contrary, the PML (N) would appear to have retained its coherence so as to permit the former leader to nominate his successor. To that extent, notwithstanding the circumstances in which it was enforced, the transition has been a relatively smooth affair.

Yet questions at this way of proceeding are inevitable and will no doubt continue to trouble Pakistan. The role of the Supreme Court is very much in focus at the present.

On earlier occasions too it has been ready to intervene in the political domain, and its activism can create unanticipated situations with long-term consequences. Pakistan has from the start suffered from the stunted development of its instruments of democratic governance ~ starting from the same point at the same time as India, with a common heritage of institutions and practices, it has failed to keep pace with its neighbour, and on the contrary has suffered a series of setbacks that have blighted its democratic aspirations.

How far an activist Supreme Court can permit the other major instruments of state to function within their respective spheres remains to be seen, especially after the ousting of Sharif by legal fiat.

The part played by the army in this crisis cannot but be a matter of compelling interest. Its repeated interventions over the years and its historical success in carving out a position for itself above and beyond the rest of the official apparatus are overshadowing developments in Pakistan’s political sphere.

During these recent events the army has held its peace, deeming perhaps that there was nothing to be gained through intervention and it was wiser to let events take their course without drawing in the armed services. Even so, there is no shortage of conviction that such a decisive event could not have been possible without the sanction, or at least the acquiescence, of the army.

The role of the army has, inevitably, come under scrutiny, and even though direct evidence may be scanty, some commentators have expressed the view that the army has not been far removed from the recent events. During his time, Sharif had on occasion crossed swords with the army and had not been able to prevail in matters where his choice went against the wishes of the military establishment. Such episodes, it is believed, left a residue of doubt and ensured that Mr Sharif never became the favourite of the army.

By contrast, the new Pak PM-designate Shahbaz Sharif, is described as being closer to the army and to have developed better ties with them ~ having been Chief Minister of Punjab for so long, the main centre of military recruitment, he can be expected to have developed better links with the military brass.

This can only be a matter of speculation at this stage but such thoughts from some observers indicate that the new incumbent may come in with a favourable initial wind behind him. Nor is there any important opposition from major civilian leaders. Not so long ago, Imran Khan and his supporters, apparently with army backing, virtually shut down life in Islamabad to promote their political cause. But Khan has not been much in the picture at this present time of decision and change.

The insistent call for an end to corruption that brought him much public support and spread to the streets is not voiced in similar fashion now. Nor has the Supreme Court’s decision sparked the public manifestations and demands for clean public life as were seen earlier. Seen from afar, the developments in Pakistan have been received more with resignation than anything else.

There have been many uncertainties in its domestic affairs even before the Supreme Court gave its judgment, and there can be little expectation that what has now happened can bring a halt to the many damaging issues of internal management that have taken such a toll in that country. Change of leadership by itself will not solve problems, and Mr Nawaz Sharif had been on the scene for so long that other leaders elsewhere may take a little time to adjust to his successor.

This is especially the case so far as India is concerned. Though relations between the two countries are greatly disturbed on account of Pakistani support for terrorism, a tenuous stability in the relationship has been maintained. At a minimum, India can hope for maintenance of this status quo, without having to deal with adventurous policies by new leaders in Islamabad. India has always considered that a democratic neighbour is better than a military-led one.

It is thus to be hoped that the new incumbent will quickly settle into his new responsibilities.

Though no significant change in relations can be anticipated, continued civilian rule may offer a better prospect for the improved ties that India has been seeking.

Source: thestatesman.com/opinion/a-blighted-pakistan-1501621976.html


The Empire Strikes Back

By Rakesh Sood

August 02, 2017

Pakistan’s deep state always works with a king’s party — as it did for the judicial coup against Nawaz Sharif

Had Nawaz Sharif continued as Prime Minister till 2018, he would have created history by becoming the first Prime Minister to have completed a full five-year term in Pakistan’s 70-year history. As it happens, he still created history, though of a different sort. When he resigned on July 28, he became the only thrice elected Prime Minister who had his tenure cut short each time by ‘the empire’, or the deep state in Pakistan.


The Panama Papers leaks in April last year consisted of more than 11 million documents, from the law firm Mossack Fonseca, containing confidential attorney-client information dealing mostly with off-shore entities and bank accounts. Of these, eight pertained to Mr. Sharif, his sons Hassan and Hussain and his daughter and political heir Maryam.

These revealed four property purchases by the family in London in the 1990s, hardly a secret in Pakistan. Opposition leader, the cricketer-turned-politician Imran Khan, immediately dubbed it ‘Panamagate’ and demanded Mr. Sharif’s resignation.

As protests mounted, Mr. Khan threatened a ‘lockdown’ in Islamabad. The government imposed Section 144, setting the stage for a confrontation. The situation was similar to the 2014 protests, also led by Mr. Khan together with the cleric-turned-politician Tahir-ul-Qadri, alleging rigging in the 2013 elections that had brought Mr. Sharif to power for the third time. At that time, the army played a role in diffusing the situation. This time, the Supreme Court stepped in to announce the setting up of a five-member bench to hear a bunch of petitions filed by opposition politicians seeking Mr. Sharif’s disqualification on grounds of corruption.

On April 20 this year, the Supreme Court came out with a split verdict. Two of the judges felt that Mr. Sharif should be disqualified, but the majority view found the evidence insufficient and recommended setting up a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) to examine the issue and submit a report within sixty days.

Establishment of the JIT was unprecedented in Pakistan’s judicial history. The team included officials from the Federal Investigation Agency, the National Accountability Bureau, State Bank of Pakistan, the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan, and interestingly, an officer each from the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and the Military Intelligence. The 10-volume report, submitted to the Supreme Court on July 10 highlighted irregular movements of large sums of money in the form of loans and gifts between offshore entities in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and the United Kingdom and recommended re-opening of a number of earlier cases while initiating a clutch of new inquiries.

The Supreme Court bench reconvened and this time, reached a unanimous verdict, disqualifying Mr. Sharif and Finance Minister Ishaq Dar (his son is married to Mr. Sharif’s daughter) and directing the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) to initiate cases against them, together with Hassan, Hussain, Maryam and her husband Capt. Safdar. Further, NAB is to complete its task within six months, before the elections next year.

A Judicial Coup

Ironically, after all the investigations, the disqualification verdict is based on a technicality. Mr. Sharif stood disqualified for having violated Article 62 of the Constitution which specifies that any member of Pakistan’s National Assembly must be ‘sagacious, righteous and non-profligate, honest and upright’, a provision that had been introduced by General Zia-ul-Haq. The verdict was based on the JIT discovery that Mr. Sharif had been Chairman of Capital FZE, a Dubai-based entity, from August 2006 to April 2014, at a monthly remuneration of 10,000 Dirhams, and this disclosure was missing in the asset declaration filed for the 2013 elections. The Supreme Court had therefore judged Mr. Sharif not to be ‘honest and upright’ and therefore ‘disqualified’ to be a member of the National Assembly. The defence lawyers had pointed out that the company belonged to his son Hassan, that Mr. Sharif had never drawn any remuneration, and the remuneration was notional, needed for the visa when Mr. Sharif was in political exile in the UAE. The Supreme Court interpreted differently; the amount was a ‘receivable’ and therefore ‘an asset’ that should have been declared!

The NAB will uncover many more skeletons, pertaining to money laundering and corruption, which could lead to imprisonment and fines unless Mr. Sharif is able to go into exile or do a deal. This is why he needs to keep control within the family. Former Petroleum Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi has been appointed interim Prime Minister for 45 days while Mr. Sharif’s younger brother Shahbaz resigns from his position as Chief Minister of Punjab, enters the National Assembly and takes over as Prime Minister. In Punjab, there is talk that Shahbaz Sharif’s son Hamza, who is a member of the provincial assembly, will take over as Chief Minister. With 209 seats in the 342-member National Assembly, Mr. Sharif can call the shots as long as the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz or PML(N) rallies behind the family. At stake is the Sharif legacy compounded because of lack of clarity about whether the disqualification is permanent or for a finite period. Article 63, also introduced by Gen. Zia, provides for disqualification of an elected member for five years on grounds of ‘contempt of court’ (this was used to dismiss Yousaf Raza Gillani in 2012) but Article 62 does not specify any time frame.

The irony is that Nawaz Sharif had started his political career with the blessings of the army in the Zia days. He became the Chief Minister of Punjab in 1985 and the ISI helped him cobble together the Islami Jamhoori Ittehad (IJI) coalition which won him his first term as Prime Minister in 1990. Since then, his differences with the Army and the ‘deep state’ have only grown. In 1993, amid increasing differences with Gen. Abdul Waheed Kakar, President Ghulam Ishaq Khan dismissed his government, but Mr. Sharif fought back, and the Supreme Court restored his position. The army then brokered a deal under which both he and the President resigned, ending his first stint. His second stint in 1997-1999 was more turbulent. The nuclear tests of 1998 encouraged him to respond favourably to Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s peace overtures which were derailed by the Kargil conflict. His botched-up attempt to replace Gen. Pervez Musharraf led to the coup in 1999 and the exile for eight years.

Basic Faultline

Like Generals Kakar and Musharraf earlier, Gen. Raheel Sharif too was his choice but differences emerged. The army had to dissuade him from going after Gen. Musharraf and he later blamed the army for encouraging Imran Khan’s agitational politics, aimed at weakening the PML(N) hold in Punjab, the largest province which accounts for 183 seats in the 342-member National Assembly. Panamagate was already unfolding when relations with the army worsened with the Dawnleaks incident last October for which the army held his office responsible. His Information Minister resigned and after a prolonged inquiry, his Adviser, Tariq Fatemi, too had to go. Differences on policy approaches with India and Afghanistan had become more pronounced. He wanted to claim credit for the projects under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor to ensure his re-election in 2018. He had to go.

The ‘deep state’ has always worked with a king’s party, and there have always been politicians willing to oblige. Gen. Musharraf had encouraged Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain to set up PML (Q) to wean away Punjab during Mr. Sharif’s exile; Gen. Zia had helped form the PML(F) under Pir Pagara and later Mr. Sharif himself had been a beneficiary. This time, Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf played the role of the king’s party and the Supreme Court legitimised the ouster. But he too is under investigation. Coups in Pakistan come in different forms and this was a judicial coup, of a judgment reached before the trial was done. But behind it is the ‘deep state’ which exposes the fundamental fault line in Pakistan, of building a state based on faith while denying its civilisational roots.

Source: thehindu.com/opinion/lead/the-empire-strikes-back/article19403689.ece


The Ouster Of Nawaz Sharif

By Satinder K Lambah

August 2, 2017

Major judicial verdicts in Pakistan have not upheld democratic values. Ayub Khan’s coup, which was the first military takeover, had been described as a “revolution” by the judiciary. General Zia-ul-Haq’s takeover was legitimised through the “doctrine of necessity”. Bhutto’s death sentence by the Pakistan Supreme Court, through a 4-3 verdict after two judges had been removed from the original nine-member bench, was considered by many as a judicial murder. When Zia dismissed his protégé Muhammad Khan Junejo, whom he had appointed as prime minister, the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal as unconstitutional only after Zia’s death. But even then it chose not to restore the Junejo government on the intervention of the army chief, as later became apparent through the revelation by General Aslam Beg himself in 1993.

General Musharraf’s takeover was justified once again in terms of the doctrine of state necessity. The court decided to ignore the core issue of Article 6 which prohibited coups. In 2012, Yousuf Raza Gillani was dismissed as prime minister on account of a Supreme Court order before he could complete his five-year tenure. In the last seven decades, the office of the prime minister of Pakistan remained abolished for over 30 years during military rule. The general stance of the Pakistan judiciary throughout has been lenient towards the army and tough against civilian governments.

There have also been occasions when the judiciary supported democratic measures. Justice Nasim Hasan Shah restored Nawaz Sharif to office in May1993 after the latter had been dismissed a month earlier. It may be mentioned that the judge in this case had been a member of the bench which delivered the majority judgement in the Bhutto case. Through this act the judge tried to redeem his image. The judgment of the Pakistan Supreme Court on July 28 in Nawaz Sharif’s case is history repeating itself. It, however, leaves some questions unanswered.

The court has referred the main charge of corruption against Nawaz Sharif to the National Accountability Bureau. Thus, a sitting prime minister has been disqualified even before the charges could be proved. Further, the judgement is not specific about the period of disqualification. Nawaz Sharif has been found guilty of violating Article 62 of Pakistan’s Constitution that requires him to be truthful (Sadiq) and Article 63 which expects him to be righteous (Ameen). It is easy to apply these principles against anyone without being specific.

A charge against Nawaz Sharif is that he did not declare to the Election Commission his salary as chairman of a Dubai-based company which in actuality he did not either accept or receive. Perhaps the court is right in declaring that unreceived salary is an asset, albeit a notional one, but it is difficult to accept that this is a crime for which an elected prime minister should face disqualification. The supreme court bench does not also appear to have been composed in a righteous (ameen) manner. The two judges who had previously opined against Nawaz Sharif were included in the bench. The inclusion of the representative of military intelligence in the JIT, appointed by the court, had also raised some questions. Nawaz Sharif may be guilty but the manner in which he has been disqualified could make him look like a martyr.

Nawaz Sharif has been prime minister of Pakistan on three occasions. He was unable to complete his term in any of them. Taking his tenures collectively, he has been the longest serving prime minister of Pakistan. As PM he visited India twice — to attend Rajiv Gandhi’s funeral and Narendra Modi’s swearing-in ceremony. In the past, he has made private visits as well. Altogether, he has had nearly 20 meetings with six prime ministers of India in Delhi, Lahore and other world capitals. He met Chandra Shekhar in Male 19 days after taking over for the first time as prime minister and later in New Delhi when he came to attend Rajiv Gandhi’s funeral. He met Narasimha Rao on six occasions — Harare (October 1991), Colombo (SAARC Meeting December 1991), Davos (February 1992), Rio (Earth Summit, June 1992), Jakarta (10th NAM Meeting, September 1992), Dhaka (November 1993, SAARC Summit). He met I.K. Gujral thrice — in New York, Dhaka and Male.

They were also in touch on the telephone. The composite dialogue started at that time. Sharif hosted Vajpayee when he went by bus to Lahore. During his third tenure he met Manmohan Singh in New York and Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Delhi, Lahore, Ufa, Asthana and Paris. This enviable record sets him apart from other prime ministers of India and Pakistan as none have had as many meetings with their counterparts. He could not achieve much success. For instance, both the Lahore meetings did not produce the desired result. Lahore was followed by Kargil and Lahore II by the attack on Pathankot.

There has been no forward movement in India-Pakistan relations in the recent past. Hence, Nawaz Sharif’s removal is not likely to affect the bilateral relationship. The control of the Pakistan army on its country’s relations with India and Afghanistan can be expected to further increase.

Source: indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/the-ouster-of-nawaz-sharif-nawaz-sharif-ousted-panama-papers-pakistan-supreme-court-4777942/


US’ Pakistan Policy: Time For More Sticks, Fewer Carrots

By Larry Pressler

 Aug 01, 2017

From my perch a few blocks from the State Department and the White House, and just across the river from the Pentagon, I am starting to see the signs that a policy shift is afoot in the U.S. position vis-à-vis its unreliable ally, Pakistan. The Trump Administration appears to be ready to take a much harder line against this rogue nation. The appointment of Lisa Curtis as the senior director for South and Central Asia at the National Security Council augurs a more punitive approach to Pakistan than the Obama Administration, which gave more military and economic aid to Pakistan than any previous administration in an effort to bribe the country into action against the terrorists hiding out in plain sight within its borders. On the contrary, Curtis has recommended that any future aid to Pakistan be calibrated against Pakistan’s ending its support to the Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani Network.

In a Hudson Institute report that she co-authored earlier this year with Husain Haqqani, a former Pakistan ambassador to the United States, the two policy experts recommended that Pakistan be punished swiftly if these milestones are not met: stripping Pakistan of its major non-NATO ally (MNNA) status and designating it a state sponsor of terrorism. Ambassador Haqqani reiterated these recommendations in a July 6 New York Times editorial. In other words, more sticks and fewer carrots. Now that Curtis is in charge of the US’ policy towards South Asia and ostensibly has the ear of the nation’s National Security Advisor and President Trump, she is in a position to initiate and implement these recommendations.

These policy changes are long overdue. As I state emphatically in my newly released book, Neighbours in Arms: An American Senator’s Quest for Disarmament in a Nuclear Subcontinent, Pakistan should be treated like North Korea — like a rogue state. The only reason Pakistan is not a totally failed state is that countries like China and the United States continue to prop it up with massive amounts of foreign aid. Unless Pakistan changes its ways with respect to terrorism, it should be declared a terrorist state. Indeed, the first Bush administration seriously considered doing so in 1992. Pakistan’s leaders have essentially blackmailed us into providing aid for the war on terror with threats to cease assistance in rooting out terrorists in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, we know fully well that Pakistan harbours terrorists, and many military leaders believe terrorists have infiltrated Pakistan’s ranks. We let Pakistan use US taxpayer money to build their nuclear weapons programme. Why do we now let them use US taxpayer money to harbour terrorists? Without our money and military supplies, Pakistan would be powerless. Why do we continue to call Pakistan an ally? Why do we continue to be blackmailed?

The Pressler Amendment is also wrongly blamed for political instability in Pakistan during its enforcement period. That is just nonsense — there was just as much instability in Pakistan before the Pressler Amendment. Critics will say that, during that time, Iran and Saudi Arabia started fuelling sectarianism in Pakistan. The truth of the matter is that the Pressler amendment did slow down Pakistan’s nuclear ambitions, and I think the public attention forced Pakistan to be much more careful and transparent. The underlying policy objectives at the heart of the Pressler Amendment clearly have had a long-lasting impact, even if inconsistently enforced.

The US Congress is tired of Pakistan’s lies and games. It cut off $300 million in aid and blocked government funding for the transfer of F-16 aircraft last year. Congress knows squeezing them financially is the only leverage that really works. Curtis and Ambassador Haqqani understand this as well. They are old enough to remember the Pressler Amendment and its impact on Pakistan’s nuclear weapons programme. Named after me, it was enforced under President George H.W. Bush in 1990 when he could not certify that Pakistan did not have a nuclear weapon. As a result, all aid to Pakistan was immediately cut off. It was the ultimate diplomatic “stick.” Unfortunately, the generals in the Pentagon continued to find ways to fund the generals in Islamabad and the Pressler Amendment’s effectiveness and enforcement withered. Today, another type of Pressler Amendment is needed to force Pakistan to reject the terrorists in its midst. Hopefully, the new regime at the White House and in Congress will make it happen. Oddly enough, the election of Donald Trump as president might be the best thing for the relationship between the world’s two largest democracies.

Source: hindustantimes.com/analysis/us-pakistan-policy-time-for-more-sticks-fewer-carrots/story-AaMa4rykJn5svjhVL5YTbN.html


Mehbooba’s Message Deserves Reciprocation Not Belligerence

By Vinod Sharma

 Aug 01, 2017

The divisive issue of Kashmir is cannon fodder for a section of the electronic media thriving on uber-nationalism. Forever on the lookout for sensation, they either miss the wood for the trees or consciously conjure up smoke suggesting a forest fire where none exists.

A case in point is Mehbooba Mufti’s July 28 speech at a seminar in Delhi where she spoke after I introduced the subject — Understanding Kashmir: a composite dialogue on peace, stability and the way forward. Organised by the Bureau of Research on Industry and Economic Fundamentals (BRIEF), the event had in attendance experts and scholars from think tanks such as the Vivekananda Foundation, India Foundation and the Institute of Defence Studies and Analyses.

The ensuing electronic media debates based on a selective reading of the PDP leader’s speech were a study in illiteracy. The big message she sought to convey was lost in the cacophony over her comment on the political consequences in Kashmir of any tinkering with Article 35A of the Constitution.

The Article defines Kashmir’s ‘permanent residents’ besides detailing their special rights and privileges. It is currently under the Supreme Court’s scrutiny on a petition that challenges as violative of fundamental rights a state subject’s loss of privileges if she married a non-state subject.

Mehbooba did not comment on the constitutionality or otherwise of the said Article vis-à-vis fundamental rights. Her focus was on the political fallout from any dilution or change in the provision aimed at securing the State’s demographic composition. Pointing to PDP, Congress and National Conference (NC) leaders in the audience, she said: “Supreme Court mein 35A abhi bhi chal raha hai. In the event of it being tinkered with, there’ll be nobody left to lend shoulder to the national flag we carry (in Kashmir).”

The PDP leader’s message rang loud and genuine: there’d be no political space left in Kashmir for those who swore by the Indian Constitution if the State’s special status was mutated in any which way. She rounded it off, in fact, on an emotional note, insisting she wanted to see an India that felt Kashmir’s angst; the India that accepted “us on our terms (humey hamari sharton par kubul kia).”

The state subject provision has its genesis in Article 370 that accords a special status to Jammu and Kashmir. Votaries of its abrogation question its sanctity (in constitutional terms). They consider it a hindrance in Kashmir’s economic development and integration with the rest of India. Mehbooba flagged the ‘incongruity’ of such demands in the context of the Centre’s insistence that talks on Kashmir be held within the four walls of the Constitution. “How can we talk in the same breath about scrapping the state’s special status under the Constitution while insisting that talks with stakeholders in Kashmir have to be within the constitutional framework.”

The speech she made as chief minister of the PDP-BJP coalition was part of her efforts to reach Kashmir’s voice to mainland India. Her posers highlighting the flip side to the largely mono-dimensional media discourse were valid and needed more popular attention.

In fact, the question to be addressed in any earnest discourse on the issue is the one she raised at the very outset: How much can the idea of Kashmir be accommodated by the idea of India? On that premise she wondered whether weapons and laws (read: pellet guns and AFSPA) that are exclusive to the State have “helped offer Kashmiris a better choice than what they’re asking.”

Pakistan blamed, but is not creator of unrest in Kashmir, says Omar Abdullah

Mehbooba made no reference to the NC’s autonomy or the PDP’s self-rule formulation. She was certain nevertheless that the way forward for the Centre was to present the people an option better than aazadi: “We have to keep the diversity…The idea of India isn’t complete without the idea of Kashmir.”

The chief minister’s was a persuasive case for a political initiative in Kashmir without disturbing the constitutionally mandated rules of engagement. It deserved reciprocation, not the kind of belligerent media response or partisan political reaction it got. It is about time India lent an attentive ear to its integral part.

Source: hindustantimes.com/opinion/mehbooba-s-message-deserves-reciprocation-not-belligerence/story-EMoUpzOjFpCbFrJt2yZDNL.html


URL: http://www.newageislam.com/indian-press/new-age-islam-edit-bureau/a-blighted-pakistan-by-salman-haidar--new-age-islam-s-selection,-02-august-2017/d/112052


Compose Your Comments here:
Email (Not to be published)
Fill the text
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the articles and comments are the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect that of NewAgeIslam.com.