Facebook X-twitter Youtube Icon-instagram-1 Tiktok Icon-linkedin
26 June 2024, Wednesday
Join SAT Community!

Home » Archives for Hammad Waleed

All posts by : Hammad Waleed

Hammad Waleed is a National Defense University graduate with a keen eye on regional dynamics, history, and global affairs.

14 July 2001 – Pak India Agra Summit

14th July holds seminal importance in the history of South Asia, especially in the context of post-conflict rapprochement that took place between contentious states of India and Pakistan. This ice melting came in the form of the bilateral Agra Summit, held in the Indian city of Agra in Uttar Pradesh. The two states had freshly been at war just a year ago in 1999. The conflict at Kargil resulted in deteriorating relations between two South Asian states. President Pervez Musharraf represented Pakistan, while, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee represented India. A year before the summit, a milestone in the form of the Lahore Declaration was achieved. This was when Vajpayee himself came to Lahore in February 1999. However, the following debacle of the Kargil War severely affected any positive prospects of the Lahore Declaration. Furthermore, chances of bilateral engagement deteriorated, after the coup of October 1999 in Pakistan. Keeping in view the hostilities between India and Pakistan, now that latter was a nuclear power as well, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan called for restraint and resumption of dialogue under the Lahore Declaration. PM Vajpayee on New Year’s Eve wrote an article where he elucidated the need to resolve the Kashmir and Babri Mosque issue. For Kashmir, he suggested a meeting with the Pakistani President. This eventually materialized after four months in July 2001 when Indian Premier Vajpayee held talks with President Musharraf to set a framework for Agra Summit. The Agra Summit The two-day summit was an ice melting moment between the tense neighbours. It became the venue of dialogue over contending issues that marred Pak-India relations. The leaders discussed wide-ranging issues including; Kashmir, nuclear risk reduction, prisoner release, confidence-building measures and developing economic ties. The leaders recognized the need for transforming the fifty-year-old confrontation into a profitable neighbourly relationship. While apparently, things were taking a turn for good, the summit could not be substantiated into a signed agreement. President Musharraf emphasized the resolution of Kashmir. What was healthy was his engagement with Kashmiri Hurriyet leaders. India had concerns regarding cross border terrorism. Premier Vajpayee later in Parliament stated that cross border terrorism would have to be a part of any draft. It is notable the clauses pertaining to this issue were part of the already agreed draft. Indian conviction to engage in the dialogue came from their inability to contain the Kashmiri militancy despite the winter ceasefire. However, despite the major focus on Kashmir, India remained leaned towards the broader topic of ‘cross border terrorism. Foreign secretaries of respective states prepared the draft agreement. After which, the respective leaders received the draft for further recommendations. President Musharraf approved the draft while the Indian side sent it to the cabinet committee on political affairs for approval. Delay in Agreement On the 16th of July, the Pakistani Delegation under Musharraf approved the declaration text. However, the Indian Government delayed the approval. The Indian Minister of External Affairs Jaswant Singh sought a meeting with his Pakistani counterpart to discuss a few revisions. Subsequently, at 9 PM, on 16th July, the Pakistani Delegation was informed that no agreement would be signed, without citing any reason. This came as a disappointment to the stakeholders of peace; as the two-day summit could not materialize in any written commitment. While President Musharraf was departing from Agra, the Indian PM told him that the agreement could not be brought within the cabinet committee. Even so, the prospects of another summit were on the table, showing that the summit indeed has made some progress. President Musharraf on his return stated, “I came back empty-handed but the summit was not a failure”. PM Vajpayee also underlined that he considered the summit as another step in the march towards finding lasting peace, amity and cooperation between the two countries. Saboteur of Agra Moreover, the presence of multiple reasons raised speculations of why the Summit could not correspond to an agreement. Some called the issue of Kashmir and terrorism to be the points of friction in achieving an understanding; while, others called India’s adamancy for not engaging on Kashmir the major source of contention. Emerging accounts blame the hawkish attitude of Indian Home Minister Lal Krishna Advani who did not allow the cabinet committee to reach the agreement during the Summit. An Indian Media report dubbed him as the ‘Saboteur of Agra’. While President Musharraf blamed Minister Advani for shortcomings in the summit, four years later. Minister Advani also became India’s deputy Prime Minister in 2002. What is interesting is that Minister Advani himself admitted to having torpedoed the summit, in an interview with the Times of India in 2008. Conclusion Lastly, the Agra Summit calls for multiple opinions. Nonetheless, it still remains a testament to the bilateral will of peace. The leaders of both states had looked forward to solving long-standing issues after hostilities in Kashmir. Ironically, the elements that torpedoed the summit also overshadowed the proponents of peace like Jaswant Singh. The rising right-wing politics under the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has diminished the chances of constructive engagement on bilateral issues. This has resulted in lethal stalemates like the one witnessed in February 2019. Even after having a military setback, the BJP led Government has been adamant to engage with Islamabad, despite the latter’s reiterated offers to engage in a peaceful dialogue.

Read More »

2nd July 1972 – Simla Agreement: Restoration of Pak-India Ties

The 2nd of July 1972, holds seminal importance in South Asia as a day of rejoinder of a post-conflict resolution. It was the day when Pakistan and India made a pact; under the name of \’Simla Agreement\’, to restore bilateral ties and regional peace. The context to this agreement provided a cogent look into the chain of events; that resulted in the signing of this deal in the serene mountains of Himachal Pradesh. The agreement was a result of the realization of both states to put an end to hostilities and restore bilateral ties. To understand the position of the Simla Agreement, it has to be observed in the context of the 1971 Indo Pak war. In the 1971 war, the Indian Forces directly colluded with the Mukti Bahini rebels in East Pakistan. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi accepted the Indian involvement in the dismemberment of East Pakistan, he also remarked about his particular role during the \’71 war. A lot has been said about the events of 1971, the opinions form a never-ending blame game that is natural to any ethnic conflict. All sides bring forth their own accounts of events. However, violating the sovereignty of a neighbouring state in a direct manner and its admission as a gesture of victory; certainly raises eyebrows for those who hold international norms in high esteems. Post 71 Talks The Simla Agreement, however, is a perfect example of bilateral states reaching out between contending neighbouring states. Previously during the 1965 war, the resolution took place under the international auspices at Tashkent. However, four months after the ceasefire of 17th December 1971; no foreign power had offered to mediate between India and Pakistan. Things cooled down after the talks that took place between Pakistan’s Secretary-General for Foreign Affairs, Aziz Ahmed and Indian Union Minister D.P Dhar. These talks took place at Murree in April 1972. While the intent of solving bilateral issues did not achieve primacy, it did set a basis for the Simla Agreement. The Agreement was marked by the presence of executives from both states; Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto from Pakistan and Indira Gandhi from India. The Agreement The text of the Agreement elucidates that; \”both countries will settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations.\” Furthermore, the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations (UN) would govern the relations between India and Pakistan. In accordance with the UN Charter, the signatories will refrain from; the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of each other. Similarly, it was decided that both countries would take steps to restore; trade ties, resumption postal, telegraphic, sea, land and air routes. The military and political part of the agreement included the withdrawal of Indian and Pakistani Forces. This was in line with the United Nations Security Council Resolution 307 of 21st December 1971. The resolution called for the withdrawal of both armies to positions respecting the ceasefire line. Legacy Despite the signing of the Shimla Agreement, bilateral issues between Pakistan and India remained hot afterwards and even flared up. These flare-ups were evident during Operation Meghdoot, the Kargil War and Indian revocation of Kashmir’s special status. Just like the inadequacy of other confidence-building measures is attributed to India’s hesitation to engage in Kashmir, this was the same for Simla as well. Pakistan’s Former Foreign Secretary Abdul Sattar opines that during the Simla Conference India’s Foreign Secretary T.N Kaul intervened in an undiplomatic way; to engage Pakistan’s General Secretary on Foreign Affairs Aziz Ahmed. In response to this, Mr Aziz stated that the Kashmir issue will be solved in accordance with the Security Council resolutions. P.N Haksar, Aziz Ahmed’s counterpart, took up the subject of Kashmir where he doubted the UN’s potentiality. Ironically he was declaiming India’s own stance; where India had accepted UN’s resolutions of 13th August 1947 for a plebiscite. In Conclusion, the Simla Agreement still serves as an example for contemporary hard-liners; who have diminished the chances of a bilateral dialogue due to unpredictable political actions. Likewise, the adamancy for any peacebuilding process, which negates the conduct of their predecessors in power, poses a threat to the peace of South Asia.

Read More »
Security Deck
Hammad Waleed

18th May 2009 – The End of the Sri Lankan Civil War

Sri Lanka witnessed a lethal civil war from 1983 to 2009. The Sri Lankan civil war was due to frictions that persisted among two ethnic groups: a majority Sinhalese and a minority Tamil population in the island nation. The war was primarily between the government of Sri Lanka and a Tamil insurgent group, Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). In 2009, Velupillai Prabhakaran, LTTE’s top leadership was killed. This brought an end to the insurgency. It effectively ended the two and half decade long conflict. The war, as per UN estimates, caused around 80,000-100,000 deaths. The LTTE was notorious for carrying out deadly attacks against civilians of all ethnicities. They particularly targeted those of Sinhalese and Sri Lankan Muslim ethnicity. Moreover, they carried out assassinations of politicians and used suicide bombings against military targets. Sri Lanka annually observes May 18th as a Remembrance Day. It is a day to commemorate the martyrs and casualties which occurred during the war. Initially, the Sri Lankans called it Victory Day. However, later on, President Maithripala Sirisena changed the name. Colonial Roots of War The Tamil Civil War, like other major conflicts of the region, was also a consequence of the British legacy. The South Asian states had inherited it from their colonial leaders. Ceylon was the name of the island during the time of the colonial era. The island nation eventually won independence in 1948. Immediately after independence, the country passed the Ceylon citizenship act, which appeared discriminatory to Tamils by denying them citizenship. Then in 1956, the ‘Sinhala Only Act’ replaced English with Sinhalese as the official language of the country. This again singled out the Tamil population that viewed the Act as linguistic, cultural and economic discrimination against them. The Tamil dissent was demonstrated in serious riots that took place in 1956 (Gal Oya riots). Similarly, in 1958 another round of riots took place in which hundreds of Tamils along with Sinhalese civilians were killed. Beginning of Sri Lankan Civil War The racially discriminatory policies had charged up the Tamil youth. The youth in its political activism started to form Tamil militant groups, the most significant of which was the LTTE. The group initially resorted to assassinations, a famous one being the Sri Lankan Tamil politician Mylvaganam Canagaratnam. As reported, Prabakhan was responsible for this assassination. The burning of the Jaffa library in 1981 is attributed to the tipping point which turned Tamils against the state of Sri Lanka. They felt that the government could not protect them or their cultural heritage. Resultantly this encouraged them to seek an independent state. The LTTE carried out over 378 suicide attacks, one of the largest suicide campaigns in the world. The suicide attack became a trademark of the LTTE and a characteristic of the civil war. The group carried out its first-ever suicide bombing in July 1987 which killed almost 40 government soldiers. The Indian Role Support for Tamils was particularly strong in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu. From August 1983 until May 1987 the Indian government, through its intelligence agency Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), provided arms, training and monetary support to six Sri Lankan Tamil militant groups including LTTE. On 5 June 1987, the Indian Air Force airdropped food parcels to Jaffna while it was under siege by Sri Lankan forces. At a time when the Sri Lankan government stated it was close to defeating the LTTE, India dropped 25 tons of food and medicine. The Indians used parachutes to drop supplies into areas held by the LTTE as a direct move to support the rebels. Indian actions mimicked their tactics that they adopted to dismember Bangladesh from Pakistan in 1971. India openly provided support to the Mukti Bahini insurgents through its army and intelligence to carry out insurgent operations against Pakistan Army in East Pakistan. The Pakistan Army, owing to the lack of supplies and manpower, majorly due to Indian endeavors, could not hold on and eventually had to surrender arms in December of 1971. However, lack of success resulted in diminishing Indian interest in the Sri Lankan Tamil insurgency. The watershed movement came when a female Tamil suicide bomber killed the Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in 1991. Afterwards, India kept itself from supporting Tamil insurgents for sake of increasing influence over Sri Lanka. Banning of LTTE The LTTE entered into talks five times. However, discussions failed to leave the LTTE in a more powerful position to fight government forces. In mid-2006, sensing victory was in its grasp, the LTTE deliberately ended the Norwegian-brokered ceasefire and initiated the so-called Eelam War IV. In response, Sri Lanka\’s government decided to change its strategic goals from dialogue to an eventual containment. Diplomatically, the government took steps to isolate the LTTE, which received some 60 per cent of its funding and most of its military equipment from offshore. The steps proved to be successful. Resultantly, 32 countries banned the group. The Sri Lankan armed forces claimed that the leader of the LTTE, Velupillai Prabhakaran, was killed on the morning of 18 May 2009. It happened while he was trying to flee the conflict zone in an ambulance. On 19 May 2009, Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa delivered a victory address to the Parliament. Mahinda declared in the address that Sri Lanka has liberated itself from terrorism.

Read More »

4th May 1799 – Tipu Sultan Embraces Martyrdom

May 4th, 1799 was the date when Tipu Sultan, affectionately known as ‘Tiger of Mysore’ embraced martyrdom. He died while fighting against the British East India company. Tipu Sultan\’s ministers betrayed him. If this wasn\’t the case, the fate of the battle would have changed. Betrayal through deception has always been a tool of warfare. Tipu Sultan was very capable of taking the adversary with a decisive blow. Only if it was not for the betrayal of ministers and high-ranking officers of Sultan Tipu. Likewise, the complex web of manoeuvres undermined the Military prowess. This caused the kingdom of Mysore to slip into adversarial\’s hands with perfect ease. Tipu succeeded to the throne of Mysore after his father, Haider Ali died in 1782. His valour was so exemplary that even Napolean Bonaparte wanted an alliance with him. Haider Ali, Tipu\’s father started his career as a soldier under one of the mighty ministers at Mysore around 1749. He was courageous in stopping the Maratha attacks in Mysore. He fought against British forces and extended Mysore\’s land to the south to the rich Calicut coast. Anglo Mysore Wars The first war between Mysore and the British occurred in (1767–69). During this time period, Hyder Ali enjoyed some measure of success against the British, almost capturing Madras. The second engagement came in 1780 which ended with the treaty of Mangalore. The third war came in 1790 when Tipu Sultan attacked Travancore. In the fourth and last war, Mysore had an army of 36,000 while EIC had 10,000 troops supported by thousands of Hyderabadi forces. Siege of  Seringapatam This was the final battle that ended the fourth battle of Mysore. The British, with the allied Nizam of Hyderabad and Maratha, achieved a decisive victory after breaching the walls of the fortress at Seringapatam and storming the citadel. The leader of the British troops was Major General David Baird. Tipu Sultan was martyred in this siege. Sultan Tipu – A victim of Betrayal Tipu and his army strongly held the fort against battery attacks by the British and Hyderabad’s forces. However, Mir Sadiq, one of Tipu\’s ministers betrayed Tipu Sultan. Sadiq at the crucial moment withdrew troops stationed at a breach in fortification on the pretext of giving them salaries. Once the troops were removed, the traitors signalled the British by waving a white handkerchief which eventually led to the overrun of the fort. Legacy of Tipu Sultan William Dalrymple, a famous historian on the subcontinent and South Asia, writes that: \”Tipu also tried to import industrial technology through French engineers, and experimented with harnessing water-power to drive his machinery. He sent envoys to southern China to bring back silkworm eggs and established sericulture in Mysore. Domestic Reforms of Tipu Sultan Tipu Sultan created a set of revenue regulations that regulated land taxes and even offered subsidies to farmers if they farmed more land. He set up a department of animal husbandry to breed superior strains of draught cattle and horses, and he built a network of new roads. More remarkably still, he created what amounted to a large State Trading Company with its own ships and factories dotted across the Persian Gulf. One scholar claimed that he “was so innovative and dynamic that, had not destiny cut short his life, he would have ushered Mysore into an industrial age. Lover for Knowledge and Crafts Tipu Sultan\’s substantial library contained some 2,000 volumes in several languages. The library had books not only about theology, ethics, Sufism, cosmology, and Islamic jurisprudence but also on history, poetry, the sciences, mathematics, and astronomy. Perhaps the greatest of all the arts of the court of Tipu is the metalwork and jewellery. Tipu loved beautiful objects, which filled his carefully amassed treasury. Mysore’s Rockets There was a regular rocket corp in the Mysore Army, beginning with about 1,200 men in Hyder Ali\’s time. Tipu regulated the use of rockets in warfare against the British. Their conflicts with the company exposed the British to this technology. This technology was then used to advance European rocketry with the development of the Congreve rocket in 1805 which was used in Napoleanic wars. For his heroic exploits, both Muslims and Hindus consider Tipu as a figure of resistance. After his martyrdom, no other contenders were left to challenge the British. This signifies the strength and mettle of the Sultan. He would have amassed strength with aid from allies, especially France, and would have given a tough time to the British. However it was not only the Sultan who became a victim of such ploys, the British frequently used this tool of buying out traitors to destabilize warring kingdoms. A similar happened when the British fought Nawab Siraj ud Daula of Bengal at the Battle of Plassey. One of the Nawab’s commanders Mir Jafar betrayed him for the sake of disposing Sultan and becoming Nawab of Bengal under British patronage.    

Read More »

A premier research and media lab, where every story counts, every data point matters!

Facebook Icon-instagram-1 Youtube Linkedin Tiktok

Latest

Resources

Connect

COPYRIGHT 2024 – SOUTH ASIA TIMES

Shopping Basket