Pakistan Press On Jinnah, Liyaqat, Mossadegh and Gilgit-Baltistan: New Age Islam's Selection, 12 October 2020
By New Age Islam Edit
Bureau
12 October
2020
• Jinnah Tried To Sell His Democratic Inclusive
Pakistan as In Perfect Congruence with the Ideals of Islam
By Yasser Latif Hamdani
• Declassified History: Liaquat & Dr
Mossadegh
By Wajid Shamsul Hasan
• Mainstreaming Gilgit-Baltistan
By Amir Hussain
• Land Of Fire
Dr Ramesh Kumar Vankwani
• Fight for Liberation
By Mark Muhannad Ayyash
• Strange Alliances
By Zarrar Khuhro
-----
Jinnah Tried To Sell His Democratic Inclusive
Pakistan As In Perfect Congruence With The Ideals Of Islam
By Yasser Latif
Hamdani
October 12,
2020
Mr Jinnah
is an extraordinary person in history, no matter how you look at it. For 38
years after partition, there was extreme nationalist propaganda about him both
in Pakistan and India – in Pakistan he is presented as a champion of Islam and
in India he is a villain of all villains.
All of this
changed in 1985 the year Dr Ayesha Jalal published her magnificent book “Sole
Spokesman”. In this book she showed – very convincingly- that for -Jinnah the
idea of a separate Muslim majority group was in congruence with the idea of a
United India, which would slowly march towards a more perfect union. Many have
tried to counter this view. First it was a little known Indian historian- and a
prejudiced one at that- from North Carolina. He was taken to task by the great
Oxford historian Faisal Devji. Now a Pakistani political scientist,
masquerading as a historian- has jumped into the fray and written a 600-page
missive against Jinnah trying to disprove Ayesha Jalal and failing miserably at
it. The problem is that the less than 350 pages of Ayesha Jalal book remain
unimpeachable. When you need to write a book of 600 to 700 pages to counter the
basic idea of a historian, you have already lost the plot. After abusing Jinnah
for 599 pages, the said political scientist only has a few statements by Jinnah
denying that he was using the Pakistan demand as a bargaining counter.
It is
amazing to suggest that an All India politician who scoffed at the idea of
religion in politics – which is why he left Gandhi and the Congress- would
sudden take a 180 degree turn
Let us
consider this proposition. If one was a politician bluffing about a maximum
demand would he come out and say it in Public? Would he say “Look this my
demand but wink wink, it is only a bluff.” He is more likely to press with his
demand as Jinnah did. It is what he settled for is that is important. He
accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan. Saying that he sold it to Muslim League as
the first step to Pakistan is no argument. The Cabinet Mission Plan provided
for a reconsideration of terms of the agreement in 10 years. While it was a
check on Hindu majoritarianism, it could go the other way, kind of like the
United States of America. The only difference is that Jefferson and Hamilton
could still work together whereas stay-at-home privileged Nehru only had
contempt for the upstart self-made Jinnah.
Only
Maulana Azad understood the real position of Mr. Jinnah. When Pandit Nehru
repudiated the agreement with his July statement, Jinnah rescinded the
agreement. It was for this reason that Maulana Azad called nominating Nehru as
his successor as the president of Congress a Himalayan blunder. The analysis by
the great Indian Jurist H M Seervailed to the same conclusion. He wrote the
famous line: It was Nehru and Patel who wanted partition and it was Jinnah who
wanted a United India.Jinnah’s politics from 1904 (not 1906)when he first
joined Congress was aimed at composing differences between various competing
interests and it was because of this that he was called the Best Ambassador of
Hindu Muslim Unity. No other politician in the subcontinent was ever given this
title. It is amazing to suggest that an All India politician who scoffed at the
idea of religion in politics – which is why he left Gandhi and the Congress-
would sudden take a 180 degree turn. It is unthinkable that a politician, who
at the roundtable conference in 1931 was arguing for a strong federation of
India where the princes came in without any extra benefits, would suddenly have
a change of heart. It is complete ludicrous to say that Jinnah, who travelled
to London as late as December 1946 to redeem the Cabinet Mission Plan, would
have thrown his life’s work away and turned his back on Bombay, the city of his
love and where his only child lived. Soon after partition, Jinnah complained to
a friend that he did not want “this damned partition” but it was forced on him.
This
obviously pokes a million holes in the established Indian and Pakistani myths
which the said political scientist seeks to resurrect in 2020. The thing is
that a political scientist is incapable of deeply analyzing historical
documents in the way a historian or a lawyer would do. The work of a political
scientist revolves around abstract theories, which have no practical use in
real politics.
Add to this
familial bias. The said political scientist’s father was a card carrying member
of Majlis-e-Ahrar which was a tout Islamist party for Congress. This bigoted
anti Jinnah and also anti Ahmadi and anti Shia party – akin to those who are
chanting anti-Shia slogans in Karachi these days- called Jinnah Kafir-e-Azam.
The said political scientist- whose identity should patently obvious to you
dear reader- himself was mentored by Agha Shorish Kashmiri, a renowned bigot
and an enemy of Jinnah. Therefore, if someone tries to disagree with him, he
launches into a diatribe against Ahmadis. This writer was accused of being a
“Qadiani” by said political scientist on several occasions publicly for the
crime of speaking out for Ahmadis and their rights in Pakistan. He breaks into
song and dance about Zafrullah Khan not joining Shabbir Ahmad Usmani in
Jinnah’s funeral prayer. All the anti-Ahmadi propaganda and myths come frothing
out.
Then he
claims that while Jinnah spoke of a secular inclusive Pakistan on 11 August
1947, he changed his view and actually wanted an Islamic Pakistan. That Jinnah
tried to sell his democratic inclusive Pakistan as in perfect congruence with
the ideals of Islam to various groups but he spoke of equal rights for
minorities in half of his speeches given after partition. Again would a
politician speaking to Muslim crowd claim that Islam was not in congruence with
modernity and democracy? That would have meant that instead of marching with
him towards a modern democratic and inclusive Pakistan, they would rebel
against him. It is in this light that one has to see his speeches – few and far
between- speaking of Islamic principles. What he made clear again and again was
that Pakistan would not be a theocratic state. So this argument holds no water.
Therefore I
must urge the said political scientist to try again. Maybe focus on actually
countering Ayesha Jalal’s argument in a cogent manner, instead of writing 600
pages of hogwash, which no one will read, except a few right wing Indians who
don’t want to admit the facts of history.
----
Yasser Latif Hamdani is the author of “Jinnah a
Life” published by Pan Macmillan India.
https://dailytimes.com.pk/676799/unimpeachable-sole-spokesman/
-----
Declassified History: Liaquat & Dr
Mossadegh
By Wajid Shamsul Hasan
October 12,
2020
With the
passage of time history becomes more re-vealing as previous records lose
prohibition of time limitation for public exposure. American classified cuments
after their declassification have revealed that Liaquat Ali Khan refused to
offer Pakistan as a base for the Anglo-American operations for toppling the
government of Prime Minister Dr Mossadegh who was not letting Anglo-Iranian oil
conglomerate continue exploitation of oil exploration. Obviously, the common
objective among the two powers was removal of Liaquat since he had become main
hurdle in the pursuit of Iran’s petroleum wealth. They were made comfortable
sleeping partners in the same bed with different dreams-a collaboration so firm
that it continues to this day with the same results.
It,
however, brings out candidly the obvious difference between Pakistani civilian
leaders and its military top brass. While Liaquat was firm in his no to the Anglo-American
designs as his defence of Pakistan’s independence and sovereign status, our
subsequent history in particular under the generals has been a long catalogue
of total surrender to the foreign dictates besides of course a life long
struggle between them and the people as to who is the sole arbiter of power in
Pakistan-the masses or the establishment. The assassin’s bullets that pierced
through Liaquat’s heart not only removed giant of a patriot but also dealt a
fatal blow to the future of democracy. With his assassination began the
unending struggle between the people and the military. Ever since then Pakistan
has come to be a land of conspiracies by its military establishment against the
political leadership rendering country’s fragile civil democracy in tatters.
The
assassin’s bullets that pierced through Liaquat’s heart not only removed giant
of a patriot but also dealt a fatal blow to the future of democracy
As Liaquat
Ali Khan Prime Minister Zulifkar Ali Bhutto too refused to compromise on vital
national interests and preferred to walk to the gallows head high to provide
ever lasting pride to his people, Pakistani generals-one after the other-have
proved themselves anorchously impotent. Time and again they have bartered
national interests to preserve themselves in power. Last of the dictators
General Pervez Musharraf-the author of his book
“In the
Line of Fire”-rightly described by his critics as a Titanic of lies-has been
floated on hot air belching foul smell drowning the country’s honour. While most
of the worst and most tragic events have occurred during this month in our
roller-coaster march onward, October 8, 2005 will always be sadly remembered as
the horrendously tragic day for the devastating earthquake that killed more
than 80,000. While that being the worst day due to its enormity in the
magnitude of human tragedy, October 12, 1999 will be remembered as one of the
most darker of the dark days in Pakistan’s political history. Yet again its
own-people conquering military over threw yet another elected civilian
government.
Life for
others since has come to be short, brutish and nasty. His own too has become
gravely insecure. While the existence of a common man is becoming more
painfully agonising, the question mark on Musharraf’s future too is becoming
more ominous. He has saved his life thankfully by resigning on pressure of the
civilian rulers. Never ever before in the history of Pakistan so many attempts
were made to kill the head of state as has been his case
The usurper
general did complete nine years in office in violation of Article 6 of the
Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan-an act of treason punishable
with death. He is the fourth in the order of the Pakistani garrison
empire-first three being General Ayub Khan (1958-1969), General Yahya Khan
(1969-1971), and General ZiaulHaq (1977-1988). Until now since 1947, Pakistan
has been directly ruled by the generals for nearly 31 out of its 59 years while
conspiracies, GHQ intrigues and machinations against civilian rulers were
started from the very inception of Pakistan and continued ceaselessly all
through.
These were
responsible for the break up of the country, separation of East Pakistan
through surrender to India, subversion of 1973 Constitution and execution of
its first popularly elected prime minister-Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto– on the trumped
up charge of murder, implantation of stage-managed democracy, series of prime
ministerial dismissals to formally return to the military rule again. Though he
did not learn any lessons from history, I attach lot of importance to General
Zia’s understanding of the dynamics of change. When he imposed his martial
law-third in a row-he warned that the fourth military intervention would mean
end of Pakistan.
Time is
running out. The megalomaniac leadership is strengthening perception that
Pakistan has come to be a failed state and a cesspool of religious
fundamentalism that is fast converting the entire region into a vast swamp with
obviously imminent spill over that would have for the adjoining countries as
much or even more catastrophic than the nuclear fall out. Howsoever large the
NATO presence in Afghanistan and whatever funds Washington and its allies pour
in, democracy will only be able to take roots there when it has a strong
democratic Pakistan as its neighbour sans ISI and a defanged military. Pakistan
now “rent-a-country” is being run through excessive corruption, coercion and
cronyism. As Lord Patton wrote not long ago, “So much has been grabbed by the
military that it will take years just to catalogue it. The military has
acquired vast tracts of state-owned land at nominal rates; its leaders dominate
businesses and industries, ranging from banking to cereal factories. Their
control of the economy has grown so great it will present an enormous challenge
to any future democratically elected government.”
----
Wajid Shamsul Hasan is the former High
Commissioner of Pakistan to UK a veteran Journalist
https://dailytimes.com.pk/676788/declassified-history-liaquat-dr-mossadegh/
-----
Mainstreaming Gilgit-Baltistan
By Amir Hussain
October 12,
2020
The ongoing
discussions about the political mainstreaming of Gilgit-Baltistan (GB) has
captured media attention across the country. Bringing GB under the
constitutional ambit of Pakistan as its fifth province is not a simple
political choice to make without decoupling this region from the Jammu and
Kashmir (J&K) dispute.
There are
two diametrically opposed perspectives regarding the political status of GB
vis-a-vis the J&K dispute. Both of these perspectives are rooted in the
contested interpretations of historical events, which unfolded during, and in
the aftermath of the partition of the Subcontinent in 1947.
The popular
perspective in GB about its political status is that of a liberated region with
no association to the J&K dispute. The people of GB think that their
forefathers liberated this 28,000 sq miles of area from the state of J&K on
their own by defeating the occupation forces on Nov 1, 1947. They think that
J&K was an artificially created princely state of the colonial era in the
post Anglo-Sikh war of 1846 as an extension of British rule. The princely state
of J&K was a proxy state to protect the political interests of British
colonializes in the era of the Great Game. Rooted in the cultural traditions of
High Asia, the people of GB think that their ethnic origins are different from
the people of J&K who they think were foreign invaders.
But there
is another perspective too which has been internationalized because of the
claims of both India and Pakistan over this region as an integral part of their
territory in the larger context of J&K dispute. The Dogra kings of J&K
laid claim to GB (in addition to Kashmir) on the grounds that these areas were
once under the control of the Sikh rulers, whom the British defeated and
thereafter sold this territory to Gulab Singh in March 1846. Under the Amritsar
Treaty, Gulab Singh accepted the supremacy of the British, who in turn allowed
him to take possession of the mountainous territory eastward of the Indus River
and westward of the Ravi. Even though Gulab Singh and his descendants were
declared kings of the state, the British continued to exercise greater control
over it by deploying their political agents. Because of the perceived threat
from Tsarist Russia’s southward movement at the time in its ‘Great Game’
rivalry with the British Empire, the latter tightened its control over Gilgit
and strategic areas located near Afghanistan, China and Central Asia.
In 1913,
the British established the Gilgit Scouts, a paramilitary force comprising
trained locals but commanded by British officers. In 1935 when the clouds of
the Second World War were hovering over the Indian subcontinent, the British
leased Gilgit Wazarat from Hari Singh – the then Maharaja of J&K – for a
period of 60 years. The leased territory became a frontier agency under the
complete political control and administration of the British.
On June 3,
1947, the British government announced its plan to partition India. The
subsequent Indian Independence Act, 1947, ended British suzerainty over the
Indian princely states and terminated all treaties and agreements with them.
Accordingly, the viceroy’s political department ended the lease of Gilgit
Wazarat. However, in doing so, it retroceded the entire territory of J&K to
the Maharaja, including those areas that were never really ruled by him or his
predecessors. The Gilgit Scouts were also handed over to him. Naturally, the
Maharaja became the legitimate ruler after this retrocession by British rulers.
India, therefore, claims that Gilgit-Baltistan is its territory because the
Maharaja signed the instrument of accession with India on October 26, 1947.
However,
Gilgit agency and the Baltistan region became independent through a revolt
against the Dogra ruler of J&K, triggered by the local military officers
with support from Major William Brown, the British commandant of the Gilgit
Scouts. The chronicles of the Gilgit revolt suggest that the British rulers –
as part of the Great Game politics – did not want India to have direct
geographical access to the USSR and Afghanistan. On November 1, 1947, the
revolt leaders in Gilgit declared their independence from the Dogra Raj and
subsequently expressed their will to join Pakistan.
Some
historical accounts suggest that the haste with which accession to Pakistan was
orchestrated by the revolt leaders was actually pushed by Major William Brown
to preempt a possible Indian move of annexing the area. On November 4, 1947,
Major Brown, ceremonially hoisted the Pakistan flag in the Scouts’ lines and in
the third week of November a political agent from Pakistan was sent to take
over the charge from the locals.
When
British rule came to an end on August 14-15, 1947, Maharaja Hari Singh decided
to retain the independence of his state for which he persuaded Pakistan to sign
a standstill agreement with him while India did not sign under the pretext that
it needed further discussion and wider consultation. Some political writers
suggest that the doubts created by Indian delaying to sign the standstill might
have prompted Pakistan to send in tribal militia to preempt Indian coercive
accession of J&K. There is no doubt that later in 1948 India forcibly took
over the princely states of Junagadh and Hyderabad Deccan in violation of
Indian Independence Act 1947. From October 12 to 26, 1947 the tribal militia
defeated the Maharaja army and captured some 4000 sq miles of the area which
became Azad Jammu and Kashmir. Hari Singh fled to Jammu, where on October 26 he
signed an instrument of accession with India as a revocable arrangement till
the time peace was restored in his state.
UN Security
Council Resolution 47 was adopted on April 21, 1948 in response to a complaint
lodged by India concerning the dispute over J&K including GB. The
resolution notes that both India and Pakistan desire that the question of the
accession of the disputed territory should be decided through a free and
impartial plebiscite. It was reiterated by India and Pakistan in the Simla
Agreement of 1972 that all outstanding issues including the dispute of J&K
will be resolved through peaceful means. The resolution guaranteed protection
of all legal, political and economic rights of the people of disputed
territory.
Through the
Karachi Agreement, GB was brought under the direct administrative control of
Pakistan till the resolution of J&K dispute. The enthusiasm with which
people of GB acceded to Pakistan with the hope of a quid pro quo did not happen
in 73 years. However, the decision of the government to mainstream GB by
granting the overdue political and constitutional rights to its people is the
right move. Let us hope it happens soon.
-----
Amir Hussain is a social development and policy
adviser, and a freelance columnist based in Islamabad.
https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/727952-mainstreaming-gilgit-baltistan
------
Land Of Fire
By Dr Ramesh Kumar
Vankwani
October 12,
2020
A tweet
message by Azerbaijan's ambassador to Islamabad H E Ali Alizada is viral on
social media. The tweet shows that residents of the capital, Baku, are hoisting
national flags of Azerbaijan, Turkey and Pakistan on the balconies of their
homes. The motive behind this is to express gratitude to friendly countries.
I also have
many pleasant memories of Azerbaijan, one of the most beautiful countries in
the world. Last year, I had the opportunity to attend an international
conference in Baku, accompanied by Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly
Qasim Khan Suri and other fellow parliamentarians.
During my
visit to Azerbaijan, I found that the people of Azerbaijan have a special bond
of love, friendship and devotion for Pakistani citizens. There is a public
perception that the leading role of Pakistan against Soviet invasion in
Afghanistan resulted in the independence of Azerbaijan.
Pakistan
has close relations with Azerbaijan on the diplomatic front. Pakistan is the
second country after Turkey to recognize Azerbaijan as an independent and
sovereign state. Azerbaijan, Turkey and Pakistan are considered close friends.
Pakistan supports Azerbaijan's principled position on the Nagorno-Karabakh
issue. Pakistan's diplomatic relations with Armenia have not yet been
established due to solidarity with Azerbaijan.
Recently,
the conflict in the disputed region has once again escalated and the war has
spread to the cities. Worrisome reports of civilian casualties due to heavy
shelling on cities are being received.
Azerbaijan
President Ilham Aliyev has announced that the only way to achieve sustainable
peace, stability and security is to put an end to the occupation of
Nagorno-Karabakh. The territory is internationally recognized as part of
Azerbaijan. On the other hand, Armenia is thwarting all such peace efforts.
Leaders of the US, France and Russia are unable to find political solutions.
Historically,
the two neighbouring countries have been in confrontation with each other for a
long time. In the Soviet era, tensions between the two countries remained on
some issues but the overall situation was calm. On the occasion of the fall of
the Soviet Union, Azerbaijan and Armenia waged a full-scale war against each
other on the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. Bilateral warfare resulted in heavy
casualties in both countries and forced at least one million people to migrate.
Russia's
efforts led to a ceasefire in 1994 but no peace agreement was signed. There
have also been calls by Azerbaijan for the evacuation of the occupied
territories but no positive response was shown by the other side. Due to this,
border clashes between the two countries also occurred on a frequent basis.
Russia invited the leadership of the two countries to find a peaceful solution,
but no progress was made. More than 350 precious lives were lost in the bloody
conflict between the two countries four years ago. Technically, the two
countries are still at war, as we have seen in the recent conflict.
Interestingly,
Azerbaijan was known as the 'land of fire' in ancient times due to the fact
that there is huge fire burning continuously in the site of Yanar Dag from the
last 4,000 years. Baku, the capital city, is also famous due to its vast
natural oil reserves. Even today, Azerbaijan supplies one-fifth of the world's
oil consumption in the international market. Therefore, it seems to be a valid
assumption that Armenia wants to seize oil reserves by expanding the scope of
the war under the guise of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
Today,
Azerbaijan is once again engulfed in the flames of war because of its
principled position. I would like to assure my Azerbaijani friends that the
Pakistani people always stand by them in this critical hour. The Armenian
leadership must understand that the Nagorno-Karabakh region is an internationally
recognized territory of Azerbaijan, and that Azerbaijan's sovereignty must be
respected in order to ensure regional peace and stability. It is the
responsibility of every peace-loving citizen to support Azerbaijan due to its
principled stand on the Nagorno-Karabakh issue.
-----
Dr Ramesh Kumar Vankwani is a member of the
National Assembly and patron-in-chief of the Pakistan Hindu Council.
https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/727954-land-of-fire
------
Fight For Liberation
By Mark Muhannad
Ayyash
October 12,
2020
In the last
few years, Israel has further cemented its grip on Palestine. The list of
Palestinian losses is depressing: the marked movement towards international
recognition of Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel, official annexation
of Palestinian land, an increase in the number of settlers and the development
of settlements on Palestinian lands, the horrific besiegement of Gaza and the
world’s participation in the siege, the ‘de-development’ of the Palestinian
economy, uninhibited killing and maiming of Palestinians, suffocating
restrictions on movement, gender-based violence in prisons and at checkpoints,
continued demolitions of Palestinian homes, the stifling of Palestinian
activism and speech for Palestinian rights in Western Europe and North America,
and the rising tide of diplomatic normalcy between Israel and Arab states.
Add to the
mix common social issues like patriarchal oppression, interpersonal conflict,
crime, socioeconomic inequality, family feuds, and political corruption,
combined with a lacklustre and largely handcuffed leadership, and you begin to
get a picture of how remarkable Palestinian resistance really is.
That
Palestinians do not give up is precisely what is so historic and inspiring
about their resistance. For more than 100 years, the Palestinian people have
been resisting and fighting for Palestine, holding on to what they have left of
it, clinging on to the hope of one day reclaiming what they have lost.
Attention
is often given to the armed resistance, but far more numerous, diverse, and
long-standing is the unarmed Palestinian resistance. Labour strikes, boycotts,
legal actions, political and community organising, demonstrations, marches,
hunger strikes, passing the keys of demolished homes from one generation to the
next, the formation of Palestinian societies and cultural groups in exile and
refugee camps, lobbying politicians across the world, building creative local
and sustainable economies, and everyday acts of resistance are all peppered
throughout the history of the struggle.
Resistance
also comes in the form of cultural productions that narrate and communicate the
suffering of Palestinians; intellectual and academic studies that illuminate
the history and lived realities of Palestinians; the development of political
manifestoes and ideologies that pave a path forward towards freedom and
liberation.
It is
impossible to count the number of people who have given, and continue to give,
their time, efforts, livelihood, and their lives in the fight for Palestine.
The problem is not that these lives are never reported or (re)presented in the
international discourse. The problem is that the core and underlying essence of
Palestinian actions remains unregistered and unaccounted for, it is buried and
prevented from being released into the mainstream discourse.
The Emirati
and Bahraini political elites, for example, never register these lives when
they proclaim their so-called peace deals with Israel. Many Palestinians, as
well as common Bahrainis and Emiratis, have rightly labelled these agreements a
betrayal of the Palestinian people.
Excerpted from: ‘Fighting for Palestine’
https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/727951-fight-for-liberation
----
Strange Alliances
By Zarrar Khuhro
12 Oct 2020
IF politics
makes for strange bedfellows, and if war is the continuation of politics by
other means, then it’s no surprise that war is a geopolitical orgy, a tangle of
limbs and alliances, of overtures and rejections and not-so-secret trysts and
thrusts.
Take the
hostilities between Azerbaijan and Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh, an ethnic
Armenian enclave located within Azerbaijan’s borders.
Though the
world recognises Nagorno-Karabakh as being Azerbaijani territory, it has been
governed independently since 1994, and while the breakaway region does enjoy
Armenian support, even Armenia does not recognise it as an independent state.
In 1920,
Azeri forces tried to gain control but while that operation was ongoing
Bolshevik forces took over Azerbaijan. Delighted, Armenia thought that the
Russians, culturally and religiously closer to Armenians than they are to
Azeris, would hand the territory to them. That delight didn’t last long and the
following year Bolshevik forces took over Armenia as well. While the new
authorities pledged to resolve the issue it went into cold storage for the next
many decades.
Tel Aviv
has painstakingly built up its ties with Azerbaijan.
One reason
was that, at that point, Stalin did not want to annoy Turkey which was and
still is Azerbaijan’s number one ally, and which was then being viewed by
Moscow as a potential ally that could develop along communist lines. The more
compelling reason was that even though both Armenia and Azerbaijan were now
part of the USSR, keeping them at loggerheads suited Stalin and his successors,
because it placed Moscow in the role of supreme arbiter. With the
disintegration of the USSR, hostilities over Karabakh restarted and Azeri
forces were pushed back from Nagorno-Karabakh in 1994 resulting in a stalemate
that has lasted till now.
Today,
while Turkey remains the most vocal supporter of Azerbaijan and is providing
not just diplomatic but also military aid, the other regional alliances are a
tangled web.
Take Iran
for example: conventional wisdom would dictate that it would be a supporter of
Azerbaijan, a Shia-majority state, over Christian Armenia but reality tends to
be more complex. Iran isn’t delighted at the idea of having Turkey entrenched
on its northern border and has domestic concerns to deal with as well in the
form of rising Azeri Turk nationalism in Iran itself, which is home to an
estimated 12 million Azeris. While largely integrated, in recent years there
have been signs of civil unrest in that community, which complains of having
its language and identity marginalised by the Iranian government. This
nationalism has been amplified in recent years by increased contacts with their
fellows in Azerbaijan and satellite broadcasts from Turkey and other Turkic
nations.
This
nationalistic outreach is consistent with Turkey’s policies under Erdogan, who
is actively playing the pan-Turkic card and for whom this war is a great way to
play to the nationalist gallery and also distract from growing economic woes
and what seems like a solidifying encirclement of Turkey in the Middle East and
Eastern Mediterranean. Along with wanting to keep Turkey out, Iran is also wary
of the dangers of growing Russian involvement in a region considered by Moscow
as being largely within it historic sphere of influence. Thus far Russia has
been playing both sides against the middle and waiting to see who emerges on
top — at the moment Azerbaijan seems to dominate the battlefield — while also
selling arms to both sides.
Of course,
a completely victorious Azerbaijan is not quite in Russia’s interests either as
Azeri gas is a strategic rival to Russia’s own gas industry which is not only a
major source of foreign exchange but also a crucial geopolitical lever for
Moscow. So Moscow and its neo-ally Iran would both likely want to see the
status quo prevail and are thus calling for a ceasefire.
While Iran
has lately been at pains to stress its neutrality and dispel the perception
that it is backing Armenia, the fact is that historically it has leaned towards
Armenia as opposed to Azerbaijan for one major reason: Israel.
Ever since
Turkey and Israel’s strategic partnership started fraying some 15 years back,
Tel Aviv has painstakingly built up its relations with Azerbaijan with one aim
being to establish a monitoring station on Iran’s border. To that end reports
claim that Mossad has set up a listening station in Azerbaijan though as a US
diplomat said, “nine-tenths of [the relationship] is beneath the surface…”.
However, we do know that Israel sells large quantities of weapons to
Azerbaijan, which is also a major source of oil for Israel. Of course, with
Israel’s growing relations with Gulf States it’s likely that the value of the
Azerbaijani alliance will diminish in relative terms. Speaking of the Gulf,
naturally the UAE is also out to cause as much discomfort to Turkey as it can
and has thus been strengthening its economic and military cooperation with
Armenia. Strange bedfellows indeed.
-----
Zarrar Khuhro is a journalist.
https://www.dawn.com/news/1584629/strange-alliances
-----
URL: https://newageislam.com/pakistan-press/pakistan-press-jinnah,-liyaqat,-mossadegh/d/123112
New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African
Muslim News, Arab
World News, South
Asia News, Indian
Muslim News, World
Muslim News, Women
in Islam, Islamic
Feminism, Arab
Women, Women
In Arab, Islamophobia
in America, Muslim
Women in West, Islam
Women and Feminism